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"?
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 wrote:
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.
The offense you take is on political grounds relating to the "anti-" part, as opposed to any discomfort with the word "American" there, right? I mean, isn't your thinking on this point something like "How dare they say that protestors are anti-American, after all, the essence of the American spirit is healthy dissent and free speech."
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.
I'm not opposed to that, really, but I just want to point out that there *is* a loss of richness due precisely to the loss of what you call "baggage".
We could "tend to avoid" the term, but there are lots of examples of sentences that just read poorly, and lose some meaning, without it.
As for the notion that "list of U.S. citizens" might offend immigrants, I find this implausible...
Yes, me too.
--Jimbo