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.

Zoe

 Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton@verizon.net> wrote:

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>As far as I have been able to determine, though, "American" is often
>used by Canadian, British, and Australian newspapers to refer solely
>to the United States.

Yes, even people who object to this usage often lapse into it. The
term "American" is less cumbersome than "United States citizen,"
which accounts in part for its popularity. Other terms also exist,
such as "yanks" or "gringos." However, the fact that these usages
exist doesn't mean we should adopt them for Wikipedia. (I don't see
anyone advocating that we call this article a "list of gringos.")

>We should be highly sensitive to word usages that are not universal,
>particularly if there's a double meaning that's offensive to some.

The term "American" has multiple meanings, including the following:

(1) pertaining to the continents of North and South America

(2) pertaining specifically to the United States of America

(3) supportive of the U.S. government, politically conservative,
pro-war (For example, the House Un-American Activities Committee
declared U.S. citizens "un-American" for various alleged political
sins. and more recently you can find examples of newspaper columnists
declaring U.S. peace protesters "anti-American.")

As I stated previously, I don't have any personal objection to usages
(1) or (2), although I do take offense when people insinuate that
peace activists are anti-American. However, I think the term "United
States citizen" should be preferred on Wikipedia because it is more
precise than "American" and also carries less political baggage.

>In making decisions like this, we shouldn't just go on a vague "urban
>legend" that some people might be offended. Are there authorities
>(style guides, for example) which recommend against the usage?

The fact that some people object to this is not an "urban legend." I
know people personally who object to it. Also, you can do a Google
search and find examples of people expressing their objections. For
example, here's a column from Sonoma Business magazine which
criticizes the usage:

http://www.sonomabusiness.com/archives/2002-04-column-gizzi.html

You can disagree with this guy's reasoning, but it's not an "urban
legend" to say that opinions like this exist.

As for style guides, the style guide for the journal of the American
Anthropological Association says, "#"America or American: For clarity
use the noun United States and the adjective U.S. unless a wider
region is intended":
http://www.aaanet.org/pubs/style_guide.pdf

In a similar vein, "Sea Power" magazine offers editorial guidelines
for prospective authors, which state, "American. Use sparingly when
the intent is to describe U.S. citizens, the U.S. military, etc.":
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/style_guide.php

In a separate thread, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>What about immigrants who haven't gotten citizenship yet? With any name,
>someone will be offended. Besides, do you think the Canadians are really
>offended by it anyway?

It's not just the Canadians. For example, I've spoken with people
from Latin America who express resentment at the seeming U.S.
monopoly on the term "American" and think it contributes to the U.S.
tendency to treat Latin America as "our back yard" (a phrase that
Ronald Reagan used when justifying U.S. military intervention in
Central America).

Actually, Daniel's comment demonstrates my point about the vagueness
of the phrase "Americans." A "list of Americans" could include
immigrants who don't have U.S. citizenship, whereas a "list of United
States citizens" couldn't. Thus, "list of Americans" is so
conceptually vague that it could conceivably include Mohammed Atta.
He was an "immigrant" who "hadn't gotten citizenship" at the time he
flew an airplane into the World Trade Center.

As for the notion that "list of U.S. citizens" might offend
immigrants, I find this implausible unless we assume that there's
something unique in this regard about the United States. Why should
"list of U.S. citizens" be any more offensive than "list of French
citizens"?
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l