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
--------------------------------
On Friday 14 February 2003 04:00 am, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I forwarded this information to the administrators there. If it's
> real, perhaps they can help. If it's a prank, hopefully they can deal
> with that, too.
Yes it was the real thing and after I asked if anybody had contacted the local
police Stevertigo then called the Cheshire PD about it.
In the future we should act on this even faster than we did (it was nearly 3
hours before the cops were called). It is up the cops, not us, to determine
whether or not stuff like this is a prank and take the appropriate action
(even if it is just to give a warning to a prankster).
Forward:
> To: 'steve'
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 4:38 AM
> Subject: RE: thank you
>
> Thank you, Cheshire PD alerted us and we took immediate action. The
> Student is in Yale-New Haven Hospital for assessment/observation. Thank
> you for your assistance.
See [[No Border network]]. When does an "excerpt" start becoming a copyright violation?
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
I currently live in the United States of America. I hope I will not
offend anyone by abbreviating the country's name as "United States" or
"U.S." I was born in the U.S., and I am a citizen of this country. I
take no offense at being called an American. I take no offense at people
in other countries in North and South America being called Americans,
although I think it lends some ambiguity to the word "American".
When I refer to a date, I say "the third". If I need to specify a month
to be clear, I say "March Third". If I need to specify the year as well,
I say "March Third, Two Thousand Three". When speaking with people in
other countries, I understand "The Third of March, Two Thousand Three"
clearly, without confusion. I also imagine that I would understand "Two
Thousand Three, March Three" or "March Two Thousand Three, Three" if
anyone wanted to refer to the date that way.
I hope for everyone's sake that they can do the same. I thought this was
a closed issue when it came to British and American spellings, and I
thought this would apply as well. Use the date you are most comfortable
with. Others will understand. If they don't understand, they should
learn that the name of the month refers to the month, the big number
refers to the year, and the small number refers to the day.
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
I very rarely disagree with Jimbo, but on this matter my mind is
perfectly clear. The wish to micro-regulate small and irrelevant
details of what other people do (or, in this case, write) is entirely
deserving of the term "Style Nazi" - for surely it is not the term
which is offensive, it is the behaviour which gives rise to it and
makes it apt.
But no-one here would seriously wish to behave like that.
Would they?
At 02:10 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Ed Poor wrote:
>Egad, where the Cunctator when you need him? At the drop of a hat, people
>are talking about banning this one and banning that one.
You're doing a fine job of channeling him here.
>If someone writes badly, just revise their work. If someone puts something
>on the wrong shelf, just put it back.
>
>SoftSecurity, right?
We have bans for good and sufficient reasons. I don't think it's
unreasonable for people to
point out cases (e.g. VeraCruz) in which a banned user comes back in
disguise and
repeats the behavior that caused banning.
It's possible that you could revise everything that needs revising, and
move back everything
that's in the wrong place--but it would use all your energy.
Me, I want to create something good, not just spend all my time painting
over graffiti.
If I enjoyed the endless, losing fight against entropy, I'd go scrub my
kitchen floor.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
Cunc wrote:
>Lies, lies. You said "decision", not "consensus".
>
>Two very different things.
Eh? Consensus is used to arrive at decisions. Semantic
arguments tire me - esp since they tend to change the
subject of discussions.
--mav
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 1]]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
I realize that anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much for an
encyclopedia, but I'd still like to share. I asked my friend who lives in
Canada whether he ever calls himself an American as a resident of North
America, and whether he would refer to people in Mexico or South America as
Americans. He replied no, and said that he refers to himself as a Canadian,
United States citizens as Americans, Mexico citizens as Mexicans, etc. He
doesn't know anyone else who does. It seems to me that an overwhelming
majority of people I've come into contact with, as well as the media I've
been exposed to refer to U.S. citizens as Americans, preferring to identify
people by their nation rather than continent. While you could refer to
people from Europe as Europeans, it would just promote confusion if you
identified people from the Americas and Americans. While I personally think
that one nation, (even if it is my own) should not hog the name of two
entire continents, I see it as the same situation as Pennsylvania Dutch
(Pennsylvania German?)
We should name our articles as the majority of the world expects to find
them, not as whatever is academically or linguistically correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Mav said:
> you should calm down and realize that what is being proposed would be no
> more mandatory than what we have now. I've already explained this on the talk page.
Put it in the ACTUAL PROPOSAL and I'll start to take it seriously.
When it's simply the unsupported comment of one contributor in an
obscure talk page (even a particularly prominent and well-respected
one), it means nothing. If that is really the intention of the MoS,
then it must say so unambiguously. My characterisation of the obsessive
urge to micro-manage things which could perfectly well be left alone as
being something "the Style Nazis" would do is an accurate one. If the
cap fits ...