<P>I find (3) highly offensive. That is NOT a definition of "American" and to claim it is is to create a straw man to shoot down legitimate use of the term, which is to definie people who live in the United States.
<P>Zoe
<P> <B><I>Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton@verizon.net></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jimmy Wales wrote:<BR><BR>>As far as I have been able to determine, though, "American" is often<BR>>used by Canadian, British, and Australian newspapers to refer solely<BR>>to the United States.<BR><BR>Yes, even people who object to this usage often lapse into it. The <BR>term "American" is less cumbersome than "United States citizen," <BR>which accounts in part for its popularity. Other terms also exist, <BR>such as "yanks" or "gringos." However, the fact that these usages <BR>exist doesn't mean we should adopt them for Wikipedia. (I don't see <BR>anyone advocating that we call this article a "list of gringos.")<BR><BR>>We should be highly sensitive to word usages that are not universal,<BR>>particularly if there's a double meaning that's offensive to some.<BR><BR>The term "American" has multiple meanings, including the following:<BR><BR>(1) pertaining to the continents of North and South America<BR><BR>(2) pertaining specifically to the United States of America<BR><BR>(3) supportive of the U.S. government, politically conservative, <BR>pro-war (For example, the House Un-American Activities Committee <BR>declared U.S. citizens "un-American" for various alleged political <BR>sins. and more recently you can find examples of newspaper columnists <BR>declaring U.S. peace protesters "anti-American.")<BR><BR>As I stated previously, I don't have any personal objection to usages <BR>(1) or (2), although I do take offense when people insinuate that <BR>peace activists are anti-American. However, I think the term "United <BR>States citizen" should be preferred on Wikipedia because it is more <BR>precise than "American" and also carries less political baggage.<BR><BR>>In making decisions like this, we shouldn't just go on a vague "urban<BR>>legend" that some people might be offended. Are there authorities<BR>>(style guides, for example) which recommend against the usage?<BR><BR>The fact that some people object to this is not an "urban legend." I <BR>know people personally who object to it. Also, you can do a Google <BR>search and find examples of people expressing their objections. For <BR>example, here's a column from Sonoma Business magazine which <BR>criticizes the usage:<BR><BR>http://www.sonomabusiness.com/archives/2002-04-column-gizzi.html<BR><BR>You can disagree with this guy's reasoning, but it's not an "urban <BR>legend" to say that opinions like this exist.<BR><BR>As for style guides, the style guide for the journal of the American <BR>Anthropological Association says, "#"America or American: For clarity <BR>use the noun United States and the adjective U.S. unless a wider <BR>region is intended":<BR>http://www.aaanet.org/pubs/style_guide.pdf<BR><BR>In a similar vein, "Sea Power" magazine offers editorial guidelines <BR>for prospective authors, which state, "American. Use sparingly when <BR>the intent is to describe U.S. citizens, the U.S. military, etc.":<BR>http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/style_guide.php<BR><BR>In a separate thread, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:<BR><BR>>What about immigrants who haven't gotten citizenship yet? With any name,<BR>>someone will be offended. Besides, do you think the Canadians are really<BR>>offended by it anyway?<BR><BR>It's not just the Canadians. For example, I've spoken with people <BR>from Latin America who express resentment at the seeming U.S. <BR>monopoly on the term "American" and think it contributes to the U.S. <BR>tendency to treat Latin America as "our back yard" (a phrase that <BR>Ronald Reagan used when justifying U.S. military intervention in <BR>Central America).<BR><BR>Actually, Daniel's comment demonstrates my point about the vagueness <BR>of the phrase "Americans." A "list of Americans" could include <BR>immigrants who don't have U.S. citizenship, whereas a "list of United <BR>States citizens" couldn't. Thus, "list of Americans" is so <BR>conceptually vague that it could conceivably include Mohammed Atta. <BR>He was an "immigrant" who "hadn't gotten citizenship" at the time he <BR>flew an airplane into the World Trade Center.<BR><BR>As for the notion that "list of U.S. citizens" might offend <BR>immigrants, I find this implausible unless we assume that there's <BR>something unique in this regard about the United States. Why should <BR>"list of U.S. citizens" be any more offensive than "list of French <BR>citizens"?<BR>-- <BR>--------------------------------<BR>| Sheldon Rampton<BR>| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)<BR>| Author of books including:<BR>| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities<BR>| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You<BR>| Mad Cow USA<BR>| Trust Us, We're Experts<BR>--------------------------------<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more