The newspaper reported a burglary, and said that “four items were taken, including a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV.”
The newspaper did not report the violation in Associated Press style:
“Use include to introduce a series when the items that follow are only part of the total: The price includes breakfast. The zoo includes lions and tigers.”
In other words, if the newspaper had omitted one of the items, the use of “including” would have been proper. Silly, perhaps, since there were only four items, but proper.
Many usage authorities say that “includes” should be used only when something has been excluded. In The Careful Writer, Theodore M. Bernstein says that “include” “usually suggests that the component items are not being mentioned in their entirety.” The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style also says that “include” “suggests that what follows is a partial list not an exhaustive list.” The Columbia Guide to Standard American English is more absolutist: “be careful to use include only of incomplete lists.”
The prohibition on an inclusive “includes” has some support in the dictionary, which defines “include” with words like “part of the whole.” But while it’s true that there are more specific ways to indicate a list that’s complete, there is virtually no difference between saying that “the United States comprises fifty states” and “the United States includes fifty states.”
“Includes” obviously excludes things when large quantities are under discussion, as in “car parts include a carburetor, fuel tank, and steering wheel.” It’s only when the numbers are relatively small that the guidance over “includes” really kicks in, and the “suggestion” to use “include” only with a partial list becomes more understandable.
Take that burglary. If the article said ten items had been taken, and “included” only four, everyone would understand that six items were not listed. But if the news article had said that “a number of items” had been taken, “including a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV,” most readers would probably assume that more than the four items listed had been taken—even if it was only four.
In other words, the use of “includes” is relative to what it is describing. With a smaller, more countable list, you’d probably be better off using “includes” only if it’s obvious that you’re leaving some items out—for example, if you’re giving only six of the nine positions on a baseball team. If you listed all nine, you could just say “The nine positions are …”
And please, whatever you do, don’t say “The positions on a baseball team include pitcher, catcher, first baseman, and more.” That would be falling into the redundancy trap.

I would hope that the bigger problem with the final example would be including "picture" as a baseball position instead of "pitcher". The "and more" is a small issue in comparison.
#1 Posted by Blaise Pascal, CJR on Mon 29 Mar 2010 at 04:03 PM
Wow, embarrassing. Fixed.
#2 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Mon 29 Mar 2010 at 04:05 PM
You wrote: there is virtually no difference between saying that “the United States comprises fifty states” and “the United States includes fifty states.”
The difference is that the first statement is false and the second is true. The United States comprises not just 50 states, but Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. "The United States includes 50 states" is correct -- it's a partial listing.
I'm not arguing against your position, just against your example.
#3 Posted by 4ndyman, CJR on Mon 29 Mar 2010 at 04:22 PM
cant we just do away with 'include' and say "four items were taken: a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV."
#4 Posted by infancia, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 01:20 PM
cant we just do away with 'include' and say "four items were taken: a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV."
#5 Posted by infancia, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 01:22 PM
cant we just do away with 'include' and say "four items were taken: a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV."
#6 Posted by infancia, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 01:24 PM
What about that Oxford comma?
#7 Posted by Elizabeth Thomas, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 01:31 PM
The Oxford comma (a k a the serial comma and the Harvard comma) is CJR style.
#8 Posted by Merrill Perlman, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 03:07 PM
In this case "including" is (entirely) unnecessary. A colon does just fine.
...four items were taken: a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV
#9 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 07:47 PM
In this case "including" is (entirely) unnecessary. A colon does just fine.
...four items were taken: a DVD player, a laptop computer, an iPhone, and a flat-screen TV
#10 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 07:48 PM