text:
Talk:Yankee/Archive 1

Any more on Jonkheers?
It's an appealing etymology, because it explains how the term could be so quickly flipped from Dutch to English, since the Dutch could be ridiculing the main source of the leadership of English colonies: As estates were indivisible, sons who weren't firstborn commonly went to English colonies to establish new estates. As such, Jonkheers would be both accurate, and a sore point. It could even be a flip of John Cheese/John Baboon.

James Fenimore Cooper
He has the best explanation of all, and he wrote the word history within living memory of people that where there. I'm amazed at how Wikipedia editors delete the real history of the term, and instead write convoluted explanations about some unknown "Janke".

"There can be little doubt that the sobriquet of "Yankees" is derived from "Yengees," the manner in which the tribes nearest to New England pronounced the word "English." It is to this hour a provincialism of that part of the country to pronounce this word "Eng-lish" instead of "Ing-lish," its conventional sound. The change from "Eng-lish" to "Yengees" is very trifling.—Editor." http://www.online-literature.com/cooperj/the-chainbearer/63/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.221.49 (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cooper is a famous novelist, and repeats a lot of stories, but he was not a famous linguist. Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 * That's like a totally absurd claim. A guy that was there at that time has less credibility than some linguist jaw-boning 200 years later.  How many "famous" linguists are there anyway?  I can't name one person that's nationally known for analyzing word-origins.  It's a totally credible claim anyway.  Just look at how the Japanese butcher English words when they try to translate them.  They become totally unrecognizable.  En-geese and Yankees are rather close by comparison.  Go Wikipedia Editors!  You will crush the opposition to your theories one click after another until falsehoods prevail everywhere on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.221.49 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
I've removed the opening sentence to this article 2 times due to gross errors that need to be discussed here, if it appears a third time is will be a 3rd revision for the author of that sentence, so I'm bringing it here. The sentence, to the best of my memory, said Yankees "were people whose ancestors arrived from Great Britain before 1700." This is wrong for the following reasons. This is only a partial list of reasons:

1. Nothing happened in 1700 making this a date of any significance, it is merely an arbitrary date, and clearly too early, as English settlers who arrived here long after this date were still called Yankees. Many American soldiers during the revolution were first generation Brits, yet they were Yankees.

2. Great Britain includes North Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, I think the term specifically refers to English setlers.

3. The term "Yankee" was origianlly used of the Dutch, who were the Jans and Jankes of the colonies. Why would anybody refer to an Englishman as Jan? Even more to the point, why would a DUTCHMAN refer to an Englishman as Jan? Use your heads, folks, please! People sometimes refer to others by the most common of their common names. Thus, Irishmen were Micks, Spanish were Diegos, English were John Bull, and of course, the Dutch were Jan and Janke. I don't understand why anybody would think a Dutchman would call an Englishman Janke. It would be like a German calling somebody Otto. Are you kidding? The original Yankees were Dutch and the term was used by British nationals, not British colonists. All early references of the term show that it was used by English sailors, who called us colonists Yankees because so many of our sailors had Dutch names. The Dutch as a people are a maritime people, and in America they rans the ports and built the ships, even after the colonies became British. It's so simple. English people sailing for the Crown had to find some little thing about the colonists that made us different from them, so they could use a term to poke fun at us, insult us, pick fights with us, or just rib us, because sailors were a rough bunch and liked to joke around, drunk on rum as they often were, and one obvious thing about us that made us different from them was the number of us with Dutch names, mostly in New York, which was the biggest port in the northeast, and was the port where Dutch nationals traded heavily with the English nationals, via the colonists, both of English and Dutch decent, sending sugar and rum from Dutch colonies in the Carribean, through the ports of the northern American colonies, mainly New York, which was favored by Dutch nationals because they were run by Dutch Americans, as opposed to the English ports in Virginia etc which had no Dutch, and the rum was shipped back to England for the limeys to get drunk on. So there you go, they called us Jan and Janke. And there were Dutch in New England too, so, we were lumped together, all northern colonists, as Yankees. Virginia colonists were never called Yankees, because they had no Dutch. Earth to Wiki editors, please use your heads now. Don't you get it yet? It's really simple. The New York Yankees are more than a baseball team, 200 years earlier they were Dutch colonists, and the first Yankees were New Yorkers. But the Dutch rejected the term because it was offensive, while New Englanders borrowed and embraced the term. I don't know what can be easier to understand than this. Even a cave man can do it! How can I make this more clear??? And please don't make me cite references or I'll hit you over the head with a bottle of rum.

Morgan Wright 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Still more likely, Jan & Kees, see below. Dutchdavey (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the seriousness of this discussion. The following is in no way meant to be provocative - Just some opinions ... from someone not too serious about his heritage.

I've seen the the source of "Yankee" listed as "Janke" in the past but as a descendant of the Deutsche (German, not Dutch) Jankes, I was always told the original pronunciation was "Yăhnkěh" - short "a" and short "e" - not "Jane-Kee", "Jank-kee" or "Yankee" - so phonetically, I don't see the linkage. (Admittedly, after coming through the immigration process, spellings varied significantly, the Colonial "English" may have mispronounced the name, and today we pronounce it with a long -e ending; "Yăhnkee".

I would agree that the name "Janke" should translate to "son of John" or "little John" in English - the Johnsons of old Germany. Elsewhere on this page the statement is made that "Janke is a Dutch female surname" but in old German context Janken would be feminine. Janke does seem to be a not-uncommon given or first name in some areas of Europe and in Dutch-Colonial Africa.

The German Jankes certainly came here after their Dutch namesakes - as "Hessians" fighting for the English in both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. (If you accept the premise that "Yankee" came from "Janke", could the Colonials likewise have used the term to mock the British-controlled mercenaries? Would not "Yankees" have been on British ships and in British forts?) Though on the losing side both times, some Hessians stayed, and others returned after leaving His Majesty's service to settle in New York, Pennsylvania ("Pennsylvania Deutsche") and other areas.

As far as the term "Yankee" being derogatory - - - it doesn't seem to be so when used with the word "Dollar" Ja? R. Janke (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. Great Britain is an island that contains England, Wales, and Scotland. The official name of the country that also contains Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And moreover, the UK didn't exist as a single country until the Act of Union in 1707. Ireland didn't join until 1803. --65.196.113.71 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please edit! I added the link since there wasn't one, but don't know anything about the subject.

--Ben Brumfield

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has origins of 'yankee':

I think Brewer is out of copyright, otherwise it wouldn't be on Bertelby.com... not sure though...

-- AndyE

PS Seems like it's definitely in the public domain, not sure about the accuracy of the the derivation though. It says

-begin quote

A corruption of “English.” The word got into general use thus: In 1713 one Jonathan Hastings, a farmer at Cambridge, in New York, used the word as a puffing epithet, meaning genuine, American-made, what cannot be surpassed, etc.; as, a “Yankee horse,” “Yankee cider,” and so on. The students of the college, catching up the term, called Hastings “Yankee Jonathan.” It soon spread, and became the jocose pet name of the New Englander. Since then the term has been extended to any American of the Northern States. (Indian corruption of Anglais or English, thus: Yengees, Yenghis, Yanghis, Yankees.)

Yankee Doodle is Nankee Doodle (Oliver Cromwell), who went to Oxford “with a single feather fastened in a macaroni knot,” whence the rhyme—

Nankee Doodle came to town upon his little pony, Stuck a feather in his hat, and called it macaroni.” The brigade under Lord Percy marched out of Boston playing this air “by way of contempt,” but were told they should dance to it soon in another spirit.

- end quote

Associated with....?
other parts of the world, particularly Latin America, yankee or yanqui is meant as an insult and is politically associated with anti-imperialism and used in expressions such as "Yankee go home".

This is very ambiguous wording, I assume this is saying the "Yankee" is seen as an imperalist? Or that the Yankee is imposing anti-imperalist views? Nagelfar 05:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * To others outside America yankee is a demoting synonym to American imperialist or to someone who is very fond of traditional northern US customs.

Jan Kees, Yeah right! ;-)
Taken from article:

The etymology is uncertain; one suggestion is that it derives from Dutch Janke, diminutive of Jan (John), or Jan Kees, for "John Cheese", a nickname for English settlers bestowed by the Dutch in the early days of New York City. The phrase was probably popularized by the English in the song Yankee Doodle Dandee to describe New Yorkers, and perhaps, all (Northern) Americans in the colonies.

 * In dutch, Janken = To Cry
 * Jan Kees -> Johan Cornelis -> Joh(a)n Cornelius.

Cheese = Kaas

Dutch would call English settlers John Cheese? Well, dutch folks are often called cheeseheads (because of their smell I think :-| ), so that part would more likely be the other way around.

Hmm, is the above original research perhaps? Could anyone provide a cite?

Kim Bruning 21:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use your head folks, The DUTCH were called Jan and Janke, not the other way around! A Dutchman calling somebody Jan or Janke is like a German calling sombody Otto or an Irishman calling somebody Mick. It's so obvious.

Morgan Wright 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The dutch wikipedia puts it the other way round. Dutch folks are often called "Jan" or "Kees", so the english might have used "The Jan And Kees-es" - yankees for short. Hmmm, could be. Does sound rather more likely? Kim Bruning 21:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its all OR, but I'd agree with the above. Jan and Kees are two VERY popular boy's first names here in Holland. Jan is pronounced Yan, obviously, Kees is pronounced Case, less obviously, but its the most sensible answer. Dutchdavey (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Jan part of the word is obvious. However Kees, besides being an abbreviation for Cornelius can also mean a baboon. In Afrikaans, a language of Dutch origin, it regulary refers to a baboon. Jan Kees means "John Baboon" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.94.150 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Janke is a Dutch female surname. Jan & Kees are Dutch male surnames or combined as one surname Jan-Kees is very common in the Netherlands. Until the 1960s female rights were not equal to male rights. So meaning a Dutch settler in the 17th century in then called Nieuw Amsterdam, where the man was head of the family, is Jan-Kees (Yankees) and not Janke's (several women called Janke). Don't forget the Dutch were the first settlers in Nieuw Amsterdam (NY) in the 17th century divided into communities like Breuckelen, Haarlem, The Broncks' (Swedish captain om a Dutch ship called Jonas Bronck).

I'm not buying it
There's no source on this "chronic masturbation" paragraph at the start. I'm removing it until it gets sourced. Rob 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * By all means, it looks like bullshit. Sylvain1972 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Nice!!! >P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.23.158 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

yankee migration to the west coast
What? Huhh? Someone Yankeeing my chain? This sounds like total BS.

Yankee currency in Ecuador
I removed the bit about Ecuadorians calling dollars "yankees" because in the 3 1/2 years that I lived and worked there, I never heard this term used; nor has my Ecuadorian housemate. lwilson4 19:25 03 June 2006

Contradiction
The article says the first use of the word to refer to Americans generally came in the 1880s, but there's a cartoon right beside that claim from the 1770s. 24.29.134.41 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Diane Sawyer version
In October 2006, during visit to North Korea, she claimed "yankee" is Chinese for "ocean demon"

Twang
It's true that it's a sourced statement, but sourced only to David Hackett Fischer. Fischer is a great cultural historian, but he's not a linguist at all, and he's only describing what non-linguists believe about the "Yankee twang". Two main problems: (1) "Yankee twang" is literally meaningless. "Twang" is a word that gets tossed around a lot for describing regional accents by people who don't know anything about accents, but it doesn't have any information about any of the actual qualities of accents. (2) Because of this, Fischer has no evidence that the "old Yankee twang" he describes is actually "old"—that is to say, that the rural New England dialect of today is unchanged sice what earlier writers have described as a "twang". I'd accept it with a more objective formulation like "The characteristic dialects of New England maintain their strongest form in the hill towns of interior New England, and have been described impressionistically as a 'Yankee twang'." AJD 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * we at Wiki rely on the best scholarship and not our own notions. Fischer is a leading expert on the Yankees with many books--one winning a Pulitzer Prize. Is there some alternative scholarship to cite????

"Yankee"
This article seems to give the impression that the word "Yankee" is used often in the US, it is extremly rare to refer to another American (from any region) as a "Yankee" and absolutly never a "Yank".

 * Have you spent much time in the South? It's still fairly commonly used there to describe Northerners. Funnyhat 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree. In the South "Yankee" means a non-Southerner and is used constantly.141.166.112.252 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

>>This is absolutely true. In the South, especially in the 11 Old Confederate States, the term is used frequently to refer to those (in both a singular and plural sense) not from the region. Whether applied as a neutral label or a derogatory term depends on the larger context, or the mannerism(s) of the individual(s), being discussed, but the word "yankee" is heard often where I come from. TexasReb 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Have you ever been to Vermont? They have a magazine called Yankee Magazine, for some reason the Vermonters are proud to call themselves Yankees, and they call everybody else Flatlanders. Except New Hampshire people, they tolerate NH people, but hate everybody else, especially New Yorkers

Morgan Wright 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that Yankee has been associated with those New Englanders. I grew up with the New Yorks Yankess and from watching movies about the south, I assumed that Yankees referred to northerners, not the closed minded, separatists up in New England.--71.235.81.39 13:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yankee Magazine is not a Vermont specific magazine. It's New England specific. And it's published in Dublin, New Hampshire. Has been for at least the last twenty years. Don't want folks to think it's just about Vermont. --annonymous 6/21/07

I live in Vermont. It is not common to call ourselves Yankees, unless mockingly (I don't want to say I've NEVER heard it, but it is very rare if it happens). I personally do take a little offense from the term. Also, Red Sox fans outnumber Yankees fans, and that is a nontrivial issue. Finally, Vermonters dislike NH invaders, too. They drive like lunatics, and occasionally vote Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.168.165 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

seppo
seppo is widely used in Australia as well as yank, I am having difficulty trying to incorporate into the seppo paragraph if someone could help me with it would be great I've also found a source here http://www.australiatravelsearch.com.au/trc/slang.html cheers Bnsbeaver 12:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I live in Australia and that term is never used anywhere I have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.220.71.21 (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seppo is short for septic tank which is rhyming slang for Yank. CMarshall (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Strine
"Strine" means "Australian" as in "the Australian language", not as in "a person from Australia" (see ). The word is misused in the article; deleting. — Paul G 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern Yankee Politicians
Neither John Kerry nor Hillary Clinton seem to defintely qualify as Yankees. Clinton does not appear to have colonial northeastern ancestry. Although Kerry is a Roman Catholic Democrat, it seems like a better case could be made for him, as a member of the Protestant Forbes Family on his mother's side. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * Clinton isn't Yankee, according to her autobiography. John FORBES Kerry is scion of the Forbes family, one of the oldest and most important Yankee families.Rjensen 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one who's largely of New-England settler descent (the meaning of "Yankee", here in southern New England) would class either senator from Massachusetts as a Yankee. John Kerry's father was an immigrant; his mother is only partly descended from settler stock.  For accuracy's sake, citation of Mr. Kerry as "Yankee" should be excised.  76.232.63.181 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yankee: usage to designate an ethnic group
On "Yankees" as an ethnic group, see Oscar Handlin, "Yankees," in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, ed. by Stephan Thernstrom, (1980) pp 1028-1030. The term is commonly used for a person of New England descent, including those living elsewhere who continue the heritage. Thus books like Yankees in Paradise: The New England Impact on Hawaii by Bradford Smith (1956); Black Yankees: The Development of an Afro-American Subculture in Eighteenth-Century New England (1988)by William Dillon Piersen; A Yankee in Creole Country by Elizabeth Gentry Sayad (2004); Yankees and Yorkers (1940) by Dixon R. Fox. about New York State; They Chose Minnesota: a survey of the state's ethnic groups by J. Holmquist )1988) has a chapter on the Yankees. David M. Ellis looked at Yankee-Dutch tensions in the Albany NY in his article on "Yankee-Dutch Confrontation" (1972)' Joseph Schafer in 1931 wrote of "Yankee-Teuton Rivalry in Wisconsin" in the 1870s. Rjensen 08:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, the article makes note of that.Sylvain1972 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In Colombia
In Colombia Yankee is called sometimes to a person that is big.. muscles... --Azuero 07:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yank "...mistakenly applied to Canadians"
I've removed the following phrase, referring to the term "Yank," from the lead: "...and is sometimes mistakenly applied to Canadians. Canadians travelling abroad took to wearing maple leaf pins to avoid misidentification."

The references given for this statement are:, , and and

My problem with this statement, particularly in the lead, is that it refers to anti-Americanism generally, rather than the term "Yank." Not that that Yank isn't used pejoratively, it is, as the article later makes clear. However, the references do not support the idea that the term is mistakenly applied to Canadians.

The first reference is from a reliable source and would be valid if it supported the contention that the term is mistakenly applied to Canadians, but it doesn't do that. As to the others, blogs do not constitute valid references.

This article, ranked as a "start class" article, evidently needs some work. I have some concerns with the lead generally, but lets get this cleared up first. Discussion? Sunray 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blogs certainly count when we are documenting actual usage by irdinary people. Rjensen 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they could be referred to in notes to show usage, but surely not used as references. We need a citation for this. Sunray 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * why do we need an academic citation whgen we have blog evidence from ordinary people--this is a matter of everyday usage. Rjensen 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Academic citation? Why would we need an academic citation? Surely we would just need a statement from a reliable source that says that Canadians frequently get called "Yank." The problem with blogs is that they are anecdotal: Someone says: "I got called 'Yank,'" or "...someone I know was called 'Yank.'"  The problem is with generalizing from this. We can't tell how common it is. Sure Canadians get mistaken for Americans. What does that have to do with the term "Yank?" Sunray 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Canadian point so I reinserted it. It adds to the article. Morgan Wright 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't believe that it is true. I've never seen any evidence of it. So I have asked for a citation that verifies that it is a common occurrence for Canadians to be called "Yank." Check out the policy on attribution:

 * "...Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

 * If you read further in the policy under the heading "Using questionable or self-published sources," you will note that blogs are not evidence. I've asked for a citation from a reliable source that says that Canadians are sometimes mistakenly called "Yank." Please oblige.  Sunray 07:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * we have signed statements by Canadians that they are called Yanks. That's what evidence of usage looks like. Rjensen 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that no Canadian was ever called "Yank," I'm just saying that one, or five, or fifteen cases of this do not make it a social phenomenon worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, if it is a common occurence, it is likely that someone has written about it in some medium that is subject to peer review or publication standards. Just find that cite and we're done. Sunray 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and while Canadians are sometime identified as Amercans, they are almost never called "Yanks." It would be taken as even more of an offence than if we were called Americans. If some Englishman called a Canadian a Yank, he would most likely be getting a free trip to the hospital! EZC195 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yankee not people of English ancestry
People need to study the origin of the word to understand why we cannot point to 17th century British colonists as the original Yankees. Too much of the writing in this article is about early British colonists, 1610 and on, yet those people were never called Yankees at the time, they were universlly called English. The Yankees of the 17th century were the Dutch, and there is NO EVIDENCE that the term was ever used for the British until the late 18th century, so please, people, let's lay off all the writings of the early colonization of New England by the English, from Plymouth Plantation on, because this article is about Yankees. New England had no Yankees until they started calling themselves Yankees during the revolution when the British army referred to all the colonists by the previously insulting term they had used for the Dutch. If you went back the the 17th century and asked people in Boston about the Yankees, they would point to the guys with the little pointy hats named Jan Van Ten Broek and Pieter VanRensselaer, not the Smiths and the Jonses. Get your history straight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morgan Wright (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC). Morgan Wright 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More examples. "It is the hat badge of the Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment from WW2. They complained that in England they were constantly mistaken for Aussies......until the spoke and then they were mistaken for Yanks." at ; or "Canadians take it as an insult though. They're often called 'Yanks' too." at . Australians too: "It's a real worry that Aussies in Europe are now being tagged "New Yanks"." at Rjensen 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Morgan, you are confusing the linguistic history of the word with its uses. It may be that the pilgrims in Plymouth were not properly refered to as Yankees by their contemporaries, but today, people in Boston refer to those descended from the Pilgrims as Yankees. Definitions of words are descriptive not proscriptive. With the term Yankee, you are going to find tons of uses that don't match the original use of the word. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that New Englanders would ever self-apply a term which was intended for another group, especially the Dutch, is completely absurd. You obviously haven't known any. The more likely derivation, never mentioned in this article, that "Janneke" was a Dutch derogatory term to deride New Englanders, is a much better fit. Yankees love turning insults on their heads. It's really the only explanation that makes any sense. 63.155.157.177 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A Georgia Rebel in Queen Elizabeth's Court
Perhaps something should be said of the many scuffles that have probably resulted from some unfortunate European or Canadian refering to tourists from below the Mason-Dixon line as "Yanks." Unlike Canadians, bearing the Battle Flag don't seem to do us alot of good in clearing up the misconception. 74.36.192.45 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please people I beseech you!! Stop with the early British history of New England this is an article about Yankees!!
Look folks. I've said it twice and this is the third time. Yankees were originally (in the 1600's) the Dutch Colonists, then they were Dutch and English colonists in the north (1700 to 1776) and then the term was embraced by all New England Americans, whether of English, Polish, Transylvanian, or Khazakistan descent, and rejected by the Dutch as offensive. The term NEVER meant early English colonists!! Yet people are writing about how the Yankee influence has extended as far west as Honolulu? What is this? Do you mean English? There were English colonists in Virginia, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, all the other 13 colonies!! Not just New England? What cultural influence to Yankee English settlers have that other English settlers don't have, and by now how are they different from Americans of all European ancestry? This whole big story of early English colonists? Those people were English, not Yankees! The term Yankee was not even used for the people of New England until the revolution! Before then, is was a nickname for the Dutch! If there isn't serious rewriting of this article, then I will do it. All this talk about early Yankee settlers sounds like it was written by somebody from Woosta or Lesta or Glosta or Lemsta tooting his horn about how great New England is, sort of a booster for a Yankee pep rally. Ra ra sis boom ba. Morgan Wright 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you add references to support your rantings.--65.196.113.71 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

References to Janke are in the article, the OED, and any modern etymology book. Learn to read.151.205.173.253 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing etymology with the meaning of the word. It may be that the english settlers weren't called yankees by their contemporaries, but modern new englanders refer to people who can trace their descent to the english settlers as yankees. Defs are descriptive, not proscriptive here. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yankee originates with the song, song an insult
If ever an article demonstrated the absurdity and self-censorship of using "respectable" sources, this is it. The term originated as an insult. Everyone knows what Yankee originally meant. It became embraced and developed from insult to term of pride and its vulgar history was disappeared. Seriously, Jan Kees? Why would the british troups use a dutch epitet for an english name? Families did not encourage their daughters to go to the new world unmarried, and the men seriously outnumbered the women. If only they had wiki then we would know better now 207.235.124.242 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yankee" Within the United States
I strongly dispute that Americans only consider people to be Yankees if they're from above the Mason-Dixon Line. Maryland and Delaware, both below that line, are commonly acknowledged as Northern states. I live in Virginia, and even there Maryland is very definitely thought of as a Yankee state.

Similarly, my Maryland-born relatives living in South Carolina are constantly stopped on the streets and asked about their (very strong) Maryland accent, these encounters invarably including the phrase "You Yankee!" at some point.

Also, within Virginia itself, people from Northern Virginia are sometimes referred to as Yankees by people from Southern Virginia.

To say that most Southerners would look at a state like Maryland or Delaware and view that as part of their own region is completely untrue.

 * My relatives (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) consider anyone living north of Interstate 10 to be Northerners/Yankees. Mylorin 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My friends from Georgia and my transplanted relatives in Virginia call us here in PA "Yankees". I correct them by pointing out that we're Dutchmen, and Yankees are those folks living on the other side of the Hudson.199.26.230.102 TheBaron0530 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology
There is a much more convincing etymology than the one there, namely that it probably comes from the way the French and Native American tribes of the region pronounced "English"; like the way the English scout refers to himself or the Huron call the English/American colonials "the Yengeese" (c/f the way "Anglais" was pronounced in the 18th century) in the famous periodic novel by James Fenimore Cooper, Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757, published in 1896 and later made into a Hollywood motion picture directed by Michael Mann. This as far as I (original poster) am told is documented, and appears to have taken a life of its own so that the island English referred to the English creoles by this term. There are definitely references to this theory somewhere ... though I'll leave that to people here who edit this.

Support this etymology
I simply support this notion.. it does make much more sense that the "Jan Kees" stuff.. Although this ethymological root is widely promoted even in the serious dictionaries. I stumbled over it in a new adaption of the very movie "The last Mohican" and it DOES make sense.. I'd like to encourage any Ethymologist to have a closer look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hallerbach (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Dandy
Oh my! Never have I seen a discussion page soo...um...spirited in discussion? Yes, that's a nice way of putting it. With all the "facts" for this page coming and going and being thrown out and contradicting each other and oh my, no one even mentions that the term yankee originated with the song Yankee Doodle Dandy, and that song can be verifiably traced definitively to Fort Crailo in the city of Rensselaer, New York across the Hudson River from Albany, NY. It was a song written as a joke about the Conneticut militiamen who came up to serve under the British in Fort Crailo during the French and Indian Wars (back when the colonies were all loyal British folk), the local Dutch decendents thought they were urban and sophisticated (Albany was one of the 5 largest cities in the colonies at that time) and these silly Conneticut farmers would "stick a feather" in their hats, and "call it macaroni" macaroni being a term common back then that refered to stylish nice clothes, trendy clothes. Look up yankee doodle dandy or fort crailo on google or ask.com or anywhere and verify this if you dont believe me. So, PLEASE, feel free to respond, and more than that, feel free to pare this entire article down to real facts that can be verified. Can the term yankee be traced back farther than yankee doodle dandy and Fort Crailo? Perhaps...but this is an encyclopedia, not a history conference of professor's debating scholarship and entymology and history and linguistics, etc, etc. Camelbinky 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rare
I believe this article fails to show just how incredibly rare the word "Yankee" and especially "Yank" are in the United States(Aside from the sports team). Reading it makes it seem like the term is as common as it is in the United Kingdom or Australia. This is certainly not so. Two decades living in several states, all around the nation and I have never heard it applied in a serious manner to anybody. Most Americans, upon learning that some nations call them "Yanks" find it hilarious and archaic. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, quite right. I don't think that the article means to imply that usage of "Yankee" or "Yank" is frequent in the U.S. The article uses the term "popular meaning." I think that this is meant to imply that it is a colloquial term rather than refer to its frequency of use. Sunray (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've ever lived in any southen states, but I live in North Carolina and I do hear it used somewhat frequently, though usually in more rural areas and by older people. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yankee = Pirate
I am not a wikipedian, but if any editors are interested here is a lead on a compelling addition to etymology: http://thepiratesdilemma.com/the-tao-of-pirates/etymology-of-a-yankee This entry mentions it being applied to "freebooters" as well http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Yankee. I would guess there is considerable source material off line for these suggestions.24.21.35.23 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, English is a language of pirates! And the word "Yankee" is from Chinese "洋鬼"(Western devil)!--113.34.158.230 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I thought Korean yanggwae, but nothing's gonna happen without some Reliable sources. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yank/ee as a derogatory term in the Commonwealth?
Well im from britain and i've never heard the term yank (we never use yankee) used as a derogatory term in itself. It's generally just used to refer to Americans in general. Though it is often used in playful sometimes insulting jokes about Americans (for the sake of argument i wont go into specifics). It is the same way with immigrants from the SANZAR nations and Canada (we get a lot of teachers from them). 86.153.24.6 (talk)]

I'm in South Wales, and the term "Yank" is rarely heard - it's a generational thing, used by those who lived through WWII, but virtually unknown to today's youngsters. 91.108.144.69 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is a derogatory term for people who trace their descent from the early settlers. Usually used by middle class and lower class people to refer to wealthy established families in communities like Marbelehead. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is necessarily a derogatory term, although perhaps when used to refer to that specific subset of the population. A "New England Yankee" might also simply be a frugal (even cheap), reserved (even unfriendly), and aloof "salt of the earth" type person. Not all of the original settlers are wealthy today; some still live in rural communities as farmers, etc. --TimothyDexter (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Origins
Came across this: Report on “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “Hail Columbia,” “America,” “Yankee Doodle” (1909) by Oscar G. Sonneck (1873–1928), appears to be originally published in 1909, and debunks every single theory listed in this article for the origin of "Yankee." Perhaps someone willing to dig into some other older texts could rewrite this section of the article much more meaningfully, perhaps pointing that even shortly after widespread use of the term Yankee to refer to Americans, no one could figure out where the term came from? That alone is more informative than listing all the various theories of its origin. 69.135.185.154 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The origins are often debated. There is another article on the origins dating to 1938 from The American Dialect Society.  Anyone who has access to JSTOR can read the full article.  Otherwise, the first page of the article is still rather informative. --Xaliqen (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Aphorism variant
I had always heard that to a Vermonter a Yankee was someone who ate apple pie with cheese. Khajidha (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yankee usage in lead
this page itself shows the various meanings of the terms which should be included in the lead. If not as itself then with the caveat the word means different things in different part of the country and the world.Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I think I agree, but I'm not sure. Your statement in itself is not justification for making the opening so US-centric. Can you please have another go at explaining what you're trying to achieve? HiLo48 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

the example given of the word 'yankee' in reference to joshua slocum is factually incorrect
currently the wikipedia article on the word 'yankee' includes this definition, under : In other parts of the world

"Joshua Slocum, in his 1899 book Sailing Alone Around the World refers to Nova Scotians as being the only or true Yankees. It thus may be implied, as he himself was a Nova Scotian, that he had pride in his ancestry. "Yankee" in this instance, instead of connoting a form of derision, is therefore a form of praise; perhaps relevant to the hardy seagoing people of the East Coast at that time."

this is actually in fact opposite of what joshua slocum wrote in his book.

it is available at google books, and at archive.org

on top of page two of mr. slocum's 'Sailing Alone Around the World' (he was the first person to sail round the world alone) you will find the following:

" though I am a citizen of the United States a naturalized Yankee, if it may be said that Nova Scotians are not Yankees in the truest sense of the word."

in other words, whoever put this reference into the article has never really read the book they are talking about.

or somehow mistook the original sources' : 'not Yankees' for: ' Nova Scotians as being the only or true Yankees'

this is unacceptable. a few generations back, every schoolchild had to read this book. it was standard reading in u.s. schools for ages.

here you may read the original book yourselves: http://www.archive.org/stream/sailingalonearou00slocuoft/sailingalonearou00slocuoft_djvu.txt

look at the beginning of page 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.158.153 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Yankee?
I've been looking for the term of a dirty yankee. I really don't know but I only heard it from President Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nderadio96 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Seppo Removed
I have removed Seppo as in the 30 years I have lived in Australia (multiple locations) I have never heard that term used. If it was used it is possibly historical but as the source was a urban dictionary that has lots of factual errors I would remove it until it is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.220.71.21 (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. Pure WP:OR there. The content was sourced. Despite your doubts about that source, it is a source, unlike your OR. I'm Australian and I certainly have heard it, on many occasions and in many places. I don't want to edit war over this, but it IS a real word, and it IS derived from Yankee. Do you really think the person who put it there made it up? I will try to find another source to keep you happy, and hope that some other editors post their thoughts on this here too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 * OK, here's some more... My Macquarie Dictionary (Australia's finest) doesn't list seppo, but it does list septic, with the meaning "A Yank - rhyming slang". I would not always be happy about Yahoo Answers as a source, but it does tell us....
 * Seppo is Australian rhyming slang. It is short for Septic Tank - which rhymes with Yank, meaning an American. They're called that because, as they say, Yanks are full of S**t. That is, they talk big but their actions don't always follow what they say. In the hands of kids it probably was just another insult in their arsenal. It isn't used much these days. I believe it was mostly used during World War II when the Americans visited Australian ports in their quest against the Japanese in the South Pacific. Australian English is full of words with double meanings. It is littered with words that in other countries would be extremely insulting. But in Australia the tone of voice used can make them mean completely the opposite.
 * AND...It's rhyming slang - septic tank rhymes with Yank, so instead of calling an American a Yank, septic tank is used instead, and seppo is a short form of that. The term originated in Australia during the 2nd World War when there were lots of American servicemen here who seemed to be loaded up with chocolate, stockings, and other goodies for the local girls, and this upset the Australian men.
 * These may not be perfect sources, but they certainly indicate that a number of people ARE familiar with the term. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Yankeeland"
In the other parts of the world portion of the uses section it refers to Finns using Jenkkilä for the United States. A similar usage, Yanquilandia, is not uncommon in Latin America. Who is like God? (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

confusion engendered by Washington Irving
I was just reading some stuff by Washington Irving and wondered why he would have Dutch Americans referring to, or thinking of, English New Englanders as "Yankees". But of course Irving was a wise guy, who knew what he -- an English-descended American writing in England of a time past -- was doing. Yet if anyone were to take his writings seriously, they might be genuinely confused, when it's obvious it would've been those of English descent referring to the Dutch as Yankees. So I'm strongly inclined to go along with what's been written above, i.e. that British nationals generalized a slur (or at least somewhat demeaning pet name) on the Dutch Americans by applying them to all Americans in and around New Holland and New England.67.83.50.182 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note
In the Dutch origins section, I noticed this: (NOTE: the Dutch name "Janneke" is the female version of "Jan", not the diminutive of "Jan", which in fact is "Jantje" meaning little John!)

If this is true, the paragraph should be corrected. If it is false, the note should be removed. Either way, the note should not be there in parentheses with the word NOTE attached to it. 151.203.162.86 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Source of Jan Kees
The name Jan is the Dutch version of John. Kees is the common Dutch nickname for Cornelius. Kees is also an archaic word for a baboon in Afrikaans, a language derived from Dutch. Jan Kees is thus a derogatory term meaning "John Baboon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinkal1000 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

 * LOL63.155.157.177 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

L'Anglais
"L'Anglais" always refers to an Englishman or English-speaking man, but never the English language, which would be either "la langue Anglaise," or just "Anglais". It also cannot be used to refer to the English people in general (that would be "Les Anglais" or "Les Anglaises".) The "A" is always capitalized, just like in English. All this lends credence to the idea that it is an Algonquin (or possibly Iroquoian, less likely since their second language was English, not French) mispronunciation, probably in a trading situation with one or more translators. Indians were ubiquitous in Colonial America, especially in the cities where they loved to visit, party and trade. This didn't change until nearly the beginning of the Federal period, after the Revolution.63.155.157.177 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dutch Evidence for the Jan-Kees theory
The Dutch themselves also quote the theory that yankee comes from "Jan Kees" [it's pronounced the same as "yankees" is in English] and originated in New Amsterdam / New Netherlands. Kees is a variant/nickname of/for Cornelis (Cornelius in English). When I visited the Netherlands, I was told this. One person said it was either rhyming slang (similar cockney slang) or initials slang (e.g saying "Tom Seaver" for "Tough Shit"). Wish I could remember more. I also heard that it was originally dutch slang for penis, like "John Thomas" or "Peter" in English.

some Dutch references:

 * Hoe Jan-Kees een Yankee werd
 * the book by van der Sijs, Nicoline, ‘Yankees, cookies and dollars’, 2009
 * Yankees could be Yanpeters, says PM
 * Dutch American Friendship Day
 * Dutch...ish
 * New York City Going Dutch
 * Kezen (reacties)
 * Broodje Aap Kwis 12 - Antwoorden
 * Jan Kees to Yankees in New York: looking for Dutch roots in the Big Apple

I would be a great project, for someone who know Dutch, to search New Amsterdam or Netherlands newspapers from the 1600s and 1700s to see if the term "Jan-Kees" is used. Of course, slang terms don't often make it to print.
 * let's just look at sources that meet the Wikipedia WP:RS standard (no blogs or web pages; no quotes from a festival organizer who does not cite any scholarship). Rjensen (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Dude, calm down. This is a talk page, not a wikipedia entry.  I'm just raising some food for thought.  You're telling me that all talk entries above meet wikipedia standards for entries?? Obviously not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.4.248 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most are poor sources and do not substantiate the claim (in the header) that "The Dutch corroborate the Jan-Kees theory" Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are two published books in there and the rest are mostly legitimate news sources. The others are there to corroborate.  No, I didn't take a poll of the Dutch population. But again, it's a talk page. It's meant for comments and discussion. I changed the title to "Dutch Evidence for the Jan-Kees theory".

OED's first source
The OED lists Oppression, a Poem by an American · 1765 as the first known English usage of the word in print.

A free [http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7166480M/Oppression_a_poem_by_an_American. PDF scan of the 1921 reprint] is available to read.

page 14 "From meanness first this PORTSMOUTH Yankey (d) rose, And still to meanness, all his conduct flows ; ..."

Footnote at bottom of same page "(d) "PORTSMOUTH Yankey," It seems, our hero being a New-Englander by birth, has a right to the epithet of Yankey, a name of derision, I have been informed, given by the Southern people on the Continent, to those of New-England : what meaning there is in the word, I never could learn."

The book was originally published in England. The footnotes are written by "a North Briton" (a Scot?), not the author.

read this
Will somebody help write about the new section I have introduced into the article about "Yankee"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.13.189 (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yankee does not mean American
When the British call Americans "Yanks" or "Yankees" they are just plain wrong. It would be like the Americans saying anyone from Britain was English. Yankees are from New England, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In Britain yank refers to all Americans. Not wrong, just different. --2.216.81.183 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

American Indians could not pronounce the word English
I suggest that this sentence, even if it were true, does not belong in the lede. The controversies over the etymology are given their due discussion in their own section. It is inappropriate to give one of the claimants prominent placement, and without explanatory context. I see that etymologies have emotional baggage, and I would not dare attempt to remove this sentence. TomS TDotO (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I removed it. Dropped in as the second sentence of the article, it was added in a completely wrong place (obvious non sequitur), let alone the point about whether it is even added at all. If anyone thinks it belongs in the article, they would need to make a lot more effort than was made to integrate it logically. But it was just as likely trolling, anyway. — ¾-10 21:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

New England definition
I was surprised not to find the definition of "Yankee" that I'm familiar with in the lead paragraph with the others. It's mentioned briefly under "In the United States":

"However, within New England itself, the term still refers more specifically to old-stock New Englanders of English descent."

That's it. See also Boston Brahmin. Here are some examples:

 * "Certainly the Irish have for years complained of Yankee discrimination against them."
 * —

 * "There were no civil rights groups then. Even the Federal Government was controlled by bigoted Yankees and Irish who banded together against the Italian immigrant."
 * —

 * "The one anomaly of this era was the election of Yankee Republican Leverett Saltonstall as governor in 1938, and even then Saltonstall jokingly attributed his high vote totals in Irish districts to his 'South Boston face'."
 * —

Would it be okay to add the New England definition to the lead paragraph, and say a little more about it in the text? (Maybe even just include one of these examples)? Rosekelleher (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that other people can add uncited information to Wikipedia articles and it'll sit there undisturbed for years, but when I make an edit that's not accompanied by multiple citations, it's always challenged? Rosekelleher (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My new signature from now on: Brilliant Man Thoughtfully Stroking His Beard (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article concerns an antiquated usage of the term
"Yankee" in its classic, New England usage is widely out of use. As such, this lengthy article is effectively serving as a memorial to a dead word. I propose that a further emphasis is placed on the the two meanings of the term that are still in common usage, the Southern American one (where the word holds significant cultural meaning) and the international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * memorials to the dead? well scholars call it "History" and it's still taught in the best schools. Rjensen (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement. I guess we should have a wikipedia page for every word of Ancient Greek that ever existed too? My entire point is that the article portrays the "New England" usage of the word as the most commonly used. The Southern usage is even listed under "historic uses" as those IT's the more antiquated usage of the term, which is patently untrue. FAR too much attention is placed on one usage and not enough on another, and as such isn't an accurate representation of the usage of the term. At best it's innacurate and a poor article, and at worse it's patently dishonest. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BROBAFETT doesn't like New Englanders I suppose. But it hardly matters since he is unaware of the serious scholarship about the Yankee. Rjensen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So the Southern usage of the term doesn't qualify for "serious scholarship" because of...what? Your bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Souther usage is covered in the opening and in 5.1. What reliable sources are you using? Rjensen (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Right but it's covered disproportionately to it's current usage, that's my entire point. Most of the sourcing for the vast majority of this article is 50+ years old, but presented as thought it's a commonly used term to describe New Englanders of English descent, which it's not. The anachronistic nature of this usage isn't accurately reflected in the article, and as a result it's misleading. BROBAFETT (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Damn Yankee
Not sure how to properly cite it, but the classic definition from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary should surely be mentioned here. That is: "Yankee: n. In Europe, an American. In the Northern States of our Union, a New Englander. In the Southern States the word is unknown. (See DAMNYANK.)."--Khajidha (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dutch Origin of the term Yankee.
In Dutch Jan is short for "Johannes" or "John" and Kees is short for "Cornelius". Kees is however also an antiquated term for a baboon and is occasionally used in Afrikaans, my home language. This thus means that Yankee is a portmanteau of "John Baboon", a insulting term for the Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Laurent Brink (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This idea was suggested above (by someone named "Brinkal", perhaps only coincidentally). It's an interesting notion; do you have anything to cite for corroboration? —Dilidor (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yankee. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226183408/http://www.cslib.org/yankeedoodle.htm to http://www.cslib.org/yankeedoodle.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804061906/http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8 to http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%83%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AD%E3%83%BC&stype=0&dtype=0

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle
"Preposterous", is not an argument against a possible and very plausible consideration of the origin of the word, considering half the colonists were Dutch and Yankee Doodle was a well known Dutch song or doodle. Dutch medieval style hats all had feathers on them and they still do.

The American COLONISTS who were largely Dutch were hated by the English because of their Viking background, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and many other skirmishes and it was the ENGLISH who started calling them Yankee Doodles, especially the Dutch soldiers who especially wore large feathers in their hats.

Because of this rivalry and animosity, the term "Yankee doodle dandy" in British conversation implied unsophisticated misappropriation of high-class fashion, as though simply sticking a feather in one's cap would make one to be noble. Peter McNeil, professor of fashion studies, claims that the British were insinuating that the colonists were low-class men lacking masculinity, emphasizing that the American men were womanly.

The song "Yankee Doodle" was a pre-Revolutionary War song originally sung by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees" with whom they served in the French and Indian War, apparently written c. 1755 by British Army surgeon Dr. Richard Shuckburgh while campaigning in upper New York. The British troops sang it to make fun of their stereotype of the American soldier as a Yankee simpleton who thought that he was stylish if he simply stuck a feather in his cap.

The Dutch colonialists, known to the English as "Yankee Doodles", deserve much of the credit for the success of the rebellion against Britain.

In retaliation the song became popular among the Americans as a song of defiance. As per the American Library of Congress, the American colonialists added additional verses to the song, mocking the British troops and hailing the Commander of the Continental army George Washington. By 1781, the song Yankee Doodle had turned from being an insult to being a song of national pride. for those identifying as disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees".

Considering all the cultural and obvious ties between the Dutch song "Yankee Doodle" and the term "Yankee" for the American colonialists, this seems the only evident and plausible explanation of how the term "Yankee" came to identify the Americans of the American Revolution.
 * It is not at all true to claim [above] The American COLONISTS who were largely Dutch were hated by the English because of their Viking background, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and many other skirmishes and it was the ENGLISH who started calling them Yankee Doodles, especially the Dutch soldiers who especially wore large feathers in their hats.  The Dutch American colonists lived in New York State and not in New England, where the British soldiers were stationed. Relations between England and Holland were mixed--there were several wars but in 1689 the English leadership brought in a Dutch prince to be their King--William III of England. The "Viking background" bit is off the wall. Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 * "Half the colonists were Dutch" is simply wrong. The only Dutch colony was New Netherland, which had ceased to be Dutch at all long before the American Revolutionary War. There were 13 colonies, and they were all English. The reason that I called this notion "preposterous" is because you are suggesting that someone wrote a song called "Yankee Doodle" before the word Yankee even existed! That does not even make sense logically. Regardless of all these other points, my main contention is that this amounts to original research—and that is why I reverted it. —Dilidor (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
Your cited source does not support your assertion that Yankee is "an allusion to Northerners in the American Civil War". Please desist from your revert war unless you can find a source that does support this claim. —Dilidor (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Allusions are not directly referenced so saying that the source does not support the claim by not referencing it directly is ludicrous MJV479 (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC) I will change "allusion" to "reference" since it seems to bother you MJV479 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC) You continue to undo my contributions despite the fact that the definition you provide is not only the historical definition but unsourced MJV479 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I break this down in a fashion which you can comprehend.
 * You make an assertion: Yankee is "a reference to the historical definition of Northerners in the American Civil War". This is an assertion, a statement of opinion which must be supported by a citation.
 * You cite an article from National Geographic in support of that assertion—but the National Geographic article does not support your assertion! It does quote the E.B. White poem which is quoted later in the article, so that citation does work in that spot—but not where you insist upon putting it here.
 * Finally, this phrase makes no sense: "a reference to the historical definition of Northerners in the American Civil War". What is that "historical definition"? How does the term "Yankee" reflect it? These questions are not answered in the body of the artice; therefore, these weasel words do not belong in the intro!
 * I am warning you now to stop this revert war or I will be forced to advance this to admin involvement. Resolve this issue here first. And to resolve it here, you need to provide two things:
 * 1) A citation which actually DOES support your assertion
 * 2) A full explication of that assertion elsewhere in the body of the article, in which you answer the questions above
 * Please understand that this is my final warning. —Dilidor (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The version you're reverting it to however does not have a citation of any sort. And there is no reason to passive-aggressive insult me by saying "in a way you can comprehend," that is uncivilized. I will put it in the way the article says, but I will not resort to plagiarism. Please note that you're reverting to a version that is supported by NO evidence and has NO citations of any sort. I believe you could improve it's clarity since it seems to be the problem. However the citation completely supports my assertion so I see no reason for you to revert it. MJV479 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Here's a definition from a leading British dictionary: According to the Oxford English Dictionary "Yankee definition A-1-a" it is //"A nickname for a native or inhabitant of New England, or, more widely, of the northern States generally; during the War of Secession applied by the Confederates to the soldiers of the Federal army." '' Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're contribution is appreciated. However we were referencing what Yankee means in the South, not what it means in the Oxford Dictionary, or any dictionary of that sort. MJV479 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, your latest edit was not a revert, at least; no, instead you changed the wording to say precisely the same thing that it said already! I have no clue why you are conducting this relentless edit war in order to keep the meaning unchanged, but at least now it's accurate. I'm going to clean up the punctuation, etc. on your edit—don't panic and revert out of reflex, please. Oh, and a citation is not required in the intro in the first place, so I'll move it to the body if it's not already there. This entire struggle has been a tempest in a teapot. —Dilidor (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not the name thing it said before because it implied that the CURRENT definition of a Yankee in the South was someone who fought for the Union cause! That is not even close to being correct! MJV479 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The dispute was not of the definition of Yankee, it was about the definition of Yankee in the South, which might not be the same definition as that is in the Oxford Dictionary, and thus deserves a separate definition from that provided by the Oxford Dictionary. MJV479 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dorry. The OED tells how the word was used in the South {"applied by the Confederates") in the civil war. Bertter read some scholarship--try When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, 1861-1865 (2000) by Stephen V. Ash which explores how Southern whites looked at Yankees. Lots of books and articles on this topics. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You say how it was used in the South, or in other words in its historical context, not how it's used by Southerners today MJV479 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * are you asking a question or making a complaint??   Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What we have here is the same problem that we encountered on the George Washington article, where a body of editors were suddenly held hostage by one person with a pet peeve concerning the historicity of the flag depicted in a famous painting. That person derailed all editing work on that article for weeks, while everyone argued and wrangled over a completely irrelevant detail that was not even related to the topic of the article. That is precisely what is happening here. MJV479 is exorcised over whether or not Southerners still use "Yankee" to refer to the Union soldiers who fought in the Civil War—a ridiculous notion which the article does not suggest. Just leave the damn thing as is and move on. —Dilidor (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC) 3O Response: The (as I write this) of the lead by Dilidor seems to cover the points of contention, if I'm reading the discussion correctly, so I would like to assume the matter is already resolved. I feel the lead should cover historical and contemporary usage, and it does. An earlier version included contemporary application to historical persons, which I didn't really see as a problem. Nonetheless, this seems to cover all the majority views of the article (and of the National Geographic source). If an editor finds they cannot consent to this version, please clearly and concisely state what the specific issues are. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
, stop being tendentious. If you have some problem with the term "Native American", fine, but don't insert that POV into the wiki. No, you're not automatically a "Native American" if you're born in the US; I know what "native" technically means, but that's like saying anti-Semitism also refers to Arabs because Arabs are Semitic. That's being petty with semantics. I already gave some arguments as to why it should be used, but your objection is that you don't like it. I see you already got into an edit war here before too. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 * It is interesting that you are accusing another of being "tendentious", when it is you who are striving to promote your own point of view. This is demonstrated in your rather snide edit summary: "Like it or not, 'Indian' is ambiguous, substandard and sometimes pejorative." "Substandard" meaning, of course, below your personal standard. But the fact is that the article already uses the word "Indian" throughout, and it was your own arbitrary decision to change it globally into a phrase that is, without question, far more "ambiguous," as I endeavored to point out. Kindly stop being tendentious while accusing others of it. —Dilidor (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not just my point of view, this is the majority point of view in modern reliable sources. You must realize that my edit summary was only phrased that way because of your dismissive edit summary saying only "no". It was neither vandalism nor otherwise malicious, so treating it that way and not bothering to give an explanation for your revert is contrary to WP:CIV. And please don't twist my words; "substandard" can simply mean "not standard".
 * In any case, now arguing that "Native Americans" is as ambiguous as "Indians" is rather WP:POINTy. Look at these two disambiguation pages. The "Indians" page refers to many people, while the "Native Americans" page only has to disambiguate between Native Americans of different countries of the Americas. How else would you refer to residents of India, and specifically to US-born residents of India? Your definition of "anyone born in the United States" is not given by the majority of reliable sources, and the only support for it I've found is in regards to the anti-immigrant Native American Party. By the way, an edit not having happened before is no reason to forever reject it, especially if there was no prior consensus. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing v2
, this is the second time now you’ve been called out over tendentious editing, Prinsgezinde and MJV479 have as well.

Not sure why you’re trying to start an edit war over the word “born”, however as a Southerner who’s fairly well versed in this history, I can tell you this absolutely is the right edit to make here in removing the word. There’s tons of famous and average Southerners alike throughout history who have in fact been born in the North, and would knock you out if you called then a Yankee. As I said before, what you “think” on the matter is irrelevant on a page of objective fact. Some, by no fault of their own, had been born somewhere in the north and moved South at an inconsequential age of 1-3 or so when they have zero recollection of anything other than the south, so of course they’re not a Yankee when they don’t embody any of the traits the describe one, since that is what defines one.

By far the most common definition and characteristics of Yankees traditionally throughout history is their penchant for arrogance, perceived superiority, looking down on southerners, etc. That is supported in quite a few sources throughout history.

Reconstruction-era Yankee stereotype: ”cowardly, avaricious, boorish, half Pantaloon and half Shylock”

Indeed, there can be people who were born in the south and have never set foot in the North but still fit the profile of Yankee, due to them meeting the same criteria:

Yankee” with all these is looked upon usually as a term of reproach – signifying a shrewd, sharp, chaffering, oily-tongued, soft-sawdering, inquisitive, money-making, money-saving, and money-worshipping individual, who hails from Down East, and who is presumed to have no where else on the Globe a permanent local habitation. In a sense of the word, however, we are disposed to opine that, while New-England may possibly produce more Yankees than other portions of the Republic. . . still, any numbers of the close-fisted race are to be met with all the way from the banks of the Hudson to the deltas of the Mississippi – all to the manor born too, and through whose veins courses not a drop of New-England blood. Of these the Southern Yankee is, without dispute or cavil, the meanest. He has nothing whatever to plead in excuse or even extenuation of his selfishness; for all around him is boundless hospitality, and even the very air he breathes excites to warm-heartedness, relaxing the closed fist of more Northern latitudes into the proverbially open palm of the generous hearted South. Time was indeed, when the Southern Yankee had neither a local habitation nor a name.

This, please leave the edit as is, as it has been extensively supported via citations and throughout history. TechAtlas (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) [User:TechAtlas|TechAtlas]]
 * It is you who is conducting the edit war. Your edit was reverted, and it is incumbent upon you to justify reverting it back here on the talk page. Your own quotation justifies leaving "born" in the definition: "who hails from Down East" and "any numbers of the close-fisted race are to be met with all the way from the banks of the Hudson to the deltas of the Mississippi". This implies that he is a native of the New England region who might have moved elsewhere. You have misunderstood this to think it includes people "who were born in the south and have never set foot in the North". Your quotation says the opposite: it is a person who is born in the east but might have moved elsewhere.
 * You betray your own bias on this matter when you state, "By far the most common definition and characteristics of Yankees traditionally throughout history is their penchant for arrogance, perceived superiority", etc.—then ironically proceed in your tone of arrogance and perceived superiority when you outrageously claim that such are "the traits the [sic] describe one, since that is what defines one".
 * You need to desist this revert war until others have had time to participate in this discussion, allowing a consensus to be reached. —Dilidor (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 * I really think the back and forth editing of a single word, "born" must come to an immediate end. I was going to add up the hours between edits to see if you were both in violation of the 3 edit rule, but it doesn't matter, the two of you are edit warring and the article is taking a beating for it! I am no expert, but the dictionary terms and even the intro to this article does not base yankee on birth, so I think "born" should not be included. Further, many articles out there still use "indian" when refering to North American native peoples. They all should be changed to "native american", it is just that is a monumental task. If you have the opportunity to change it when you see it, please do. Lastly, I saw an edit that added something about South Koreans using Yankee and it was totally unsourced. Let's make a real effort not to add statements to the article that aren't sourced, and that may help us through this process as well. StarHOG (Talk) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) (*note, upon reading this section, I seem to have inadvertently placed my comment higher up in this thread then I meant, so I moved it down chronologically. Many frown on altering talk pages, but it is my post I am moving and it was placed in error.) StarHOG (Talk) 14:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this pretty much sums up my thoughts and argument on the matter, i.e. the crux of the argument is that the definition in no way requires one to be born in a specific geographical area in order to meet the definition. I'll admit I could have done a better job than simply removing the word born, I like the phrasing in your edit much better ("inhabiting the area").

, first of all, and above all else, leave the ad hominem attacks and passive aggressive remarks at the door please, they are in no way, shape, or form appropriate for discourse between contributors on Wikipedia who are above all trying to deliver reliable and factual content. I was in no way using the quote I pulled from a source to support my argument as a descriptor for you or anyone else participating in this article's content, please return the courtesy, and passive aggressive remarks like "SIC" (congratulations, you found a mobile Talk passage I wrote in about five minutes!) do nothing to further your cause here.

Ultimately...what you've wrote on the talk page doesn't really change my argument here, as StarHOG also pointed out, the crux of the matter is place of birth is not a prerequisite for meeting the definition by the vast majority of dictionary and historical sources. Obviously a ton of people throughout history who met the definition of Yankee were indeed born in the commonly referenced geographical areas, but as we said, it is by no means a requirement. "Hail" is just as likely to mean "a resident of" as it is "a native of". Please don't use things you've implied or opinions as the basis of editing an article. I ask that you leave StarHOG's edit as is, as we've both made our case quite clearly here and substantiated it with sources and definitions. Thanks! TechAtlas (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) TechAtlas

 * "…what you've wrote…". Speechless. —Dilidor (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

it appears the edit war over "Indian" is yet to be resolved.
 * I am monitoring this page, it is unnecessary to ping me. The edit war I was referring to was the back and forth reverting of the word "born". I did begin making this article more politically correct, as other articles are striving to do, by eliminating the word "indian". However, on doing further research, I am personally unsure what word "indian" should be replaced this. The Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian's website uses both "native american" and "american indian" quite freely. I have actually contacted them regarding this asking for articles or sources that may put it to rest, but until we get a definitive answer, there isn't a reason to go on a mass editing campaign here or anywhere else. I have also posed the question on the wikipedia Manual of Style talk page. Let's see what happens. StarHOG (Talk) 16:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There’s not any way for others to know who’s monitoring a page AFAIK, hence the ping, but good to know. In the event you weren’t, just wanted to make you aware. Thanks for reaching out to some authoritative sources, that would be really helpful actually. TechAtlas (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure what to say about the American Indian thing. I got a nice reply on the manual of style page and read some of the links. There is a whole wikipedia page devoted to Native American name controversy, amd it doesn't even resolve anything. "Indian" is wrong, however. Native American seems to now denote all indigenous peoples of the americas, and American Indian seems to specify the continental US. I would recommend the use of American Indian, but there is simply no authority. The next thing I would caution is that, just because there is no consensus or authority, that certainly doesn't mean people are free to leave pejoratives like "indian" in articles. IMHO. StarHOG (Talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see how Indian is "wrong" and "pejorative", while American Indian is recommended. Your distinction is not at all clear and seems rather arbitrary. —Dilidor (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See here StarHOG (Talk) 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is addressing "injun", which is certainly pejorative. It does not address "Indian", as in "Indian languages" as is used in this article. —Dilidor (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The title of the section is "Indian/Injun" and it does indeed speak about the use of the word Indian. I am not here to help you read articles, or make sure you read all of them, or read the title of sections. Please provide a source that says it is OK to refer to American Indians simply as "indian" otherwise we're done with this. StarHOG (Talk) 14:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's good that you recognize your incapacity to help me read, since you're not doing very well at it for yourself. That article addresses "Indian princess" and "Injun"—it does not address "Indian". Please provide a source which says that it is not OK to refer to American Indians simply as "Indian"; otherwise, we're done with this. —Dilidor (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered what's discussed in this video? CGP Grey is a highly reliable source generally, though it would be somewhat difficult to find out many of the sources he used. Nonetheless his conclusions are definitely interesting: YouTube "'Indian' or 'Native American'? [Reservations, Part 0]" TechAtlas (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yankee/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Design Science License

Inclusion of license text
Would it be useful to put the text of the DSL here? It's pretty self-explanatory, when you get down to it. -- April

 * Could we use it under the GFDL or under fair use? Then no. And if it is at all long, it probably belongs on Wikisource. --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I can't understand why a copyleft license would be copyrighted. Is this irony? Tomid 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting the text dispute to rest
I received this email from GNU.org about the DSL text.

It is true that the Design Science License is regrettably incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. So I think you are right that the copyright holder needs to release the work under the GFDL, public domain, or some compatible license. We certainly hope they do so (we explicitly disrecommend the DSL for documentation for exactly this reason).

I'm not sure if you were looking for anything else from GNU? Not knowingly the DSL-covered material you're speaking of, or who the copyright holders are, I'm not sure what more to say at this point ...

Best regards, karl@gnu.org

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

This puts to rest the whole issue unless someone goes to the guy who wrote the DSL and gets him to release it as PD or GFDL. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in addition to that problem; wikipedia is not a receptacle for the text of documents you're thinking of wikisource. Feel free to put the license up there provided you can get permission to do so.  Use this article to explain the historical, legal, etc. ramifications of the license in an encyclopedic manner.--Anymouse  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the reverter would like to start a pointless revert war it is recomended he or she come to the talk page and explain his or her rational for including the full text despite the wikiusage and legal reasons for not doing so.--Anymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're one to talk considering that you deleted the text without making any comment here on the talk page. Nor did you wait for any comment, response, or discussion before deleting the text again.  I am under no obligation to offer any rationale for its inclusion, and I have no comment on its appropriateness, or the other issues involved.  I saw an anonymous user delete the majority of the text of an article, and I reverted what I saw as vandalism.  I will do so again.  Your opinion that the text is inappropriate does not justify your deletion of same.  Oh, and please sign your comments so that sinebot does not have to do it for you.  Its common courtesy to use consistent formatting.  Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically what your saying is that an anonymous users actions are subject to your oversite but yours are not subject to his? Also if you'll take a look at the history and the time stamps I did offer a rationale for my deletion. Both here and in the edit summary. I.E. that the inclusion of the fulltext belonged on wikisource and that it was possibly illegal. In other words mah dear Jacobite, you're one to talk and you should feel free to explain why portions of an article that are both unencyclopedic and possibly illegal should NOT be deleted. Or you could continue to claim that you're a law apart from the common and quibble about formatting.

RecentlyAnon 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference for this article
Here is a reference from Linux today. www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2001072600120PS

A36B7436 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Design Science License