james duffy wrote:
It may seem pedantic but this is a SERIOUS sourcebook here, not a game where we adopt the attitude 'ah shucks, who cares?' Canadians aren't going to take a sourcebook seriously that acts as though they don't exist
I think that your discussion of Ireland and "Irish" and so forth is right-on, but really we're talking about common usage, right?
In today's Globe and Mail,
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030228.wxedit0228/BNStory/...
there's an editorial about MP Carolyn Parrish, who has caused a bit of a dust-up Wednesday when -- after she thought she was no longer on camera -- she said "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards."
Without commenting on her sentiment, I think it's pretty clear that she accepts the use of the term "American" to refer to the United States.
Doing a search on the term "American" in Canadian, British, and Australian newspapers reveals that all of them use the term to mean the United States.
I do think we need to follow common usage, and to avoid controversial usages. But I don't think this is a good example at all. It simply isn't true that a serious resource shouldn't use that term in that way. Serious sources do, all the time.
Is it odd that this is conventional usage? I don't know, and as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't take a position on it.
--Jimbo