Talk:Americas

Rising language

I would propose a small edit in the language senction. Recently Japanese is becoming a popular language in Mexico thanks to migrations and other things. So I suggest that is added to the countries the language is used in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akakeimei (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

America in Nahuatl as well

I come from a family in Mexico City that speaks both Spanish and Nahuatl. I have been informed that America is mostlu known as "Ixachitlan" among Nahuatl speakers, despite the widespread use of "Amerika" as well. In the section where the names for the continent in different languages are, there is no Náhuatl voice for the continent that has more than 1 million speakers, whereas Dutch, which has less than 1 million, has its word for America. I hereby most humbly request that the Nahuatl voice be added, but not at the expense of removing any other voice. If references are needed, the well known online Spanish-Náhuatl "Aulex" Dictionary points it out here: http://aulex.org/es-nah/?busca=am%C3%A9rica.

Thank you all very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsinche (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for pointing this out. The Nahuatl word has been added. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

TYPO: large areas between the Rock and Appalachian mountains.

I found this typo: "large areas between the Rock and Appalachian mountains." It should refer to "Rocky" mountains. Was not allowed to edit the change myself, so I thought I'd post it here.

Y Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Deor (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest urban centers

I find a notice I receive on my talk page amusing: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Americas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. My edit summary plainly stated Removing section - it only mentions and gives undue weight to three cities in the Americas. One whole section in this article dedicated to mentioning only three cities and their metropolitan and urban areas simply gives them to much undue weight. Their collective population isn't even that large compared to the overall population of the America. If anything it is a subtle form of boosterism in favor of New York City, São Paulo, and Mexico City. I advocate for its removal in accordance with Wikipedia's undue weight and boosterism policies. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda tired of your "Mexico vs brazil" agenda (that a simple collection of diffs from your edit summary will show). Weren't you the one that tried to list Sao Paolo first in this section back in May? [1] Weren't you the one that favored the (very limiting) concept of "city proper" just to get Sao Paolo listed first? Weren't you the one that added a whole (unnecessary) explanation of each concept? [2] All of these POV forks of yours were dismissed and now you use the argument of "boosterism" to remove this section, just because Sao is not listed first? Plainly hypocritical.

Now, cut to the chase. It happens that Mexico City, NYC and Sao are the largest urban centers in the Americas. However your concerns can be easily addressed by adding several other cities to the table until we complete a top 10 (for example). But a simple deletion of an already worked subarticle is just section blanking and it constitues a form of vandalism. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it again amusing that you create agendas for myself, when I myself do not know of or have such agendas! My edit history shows that very clearly. It is only by not assuming good faith and viewing everything as a contest to be first that one would assume I have an agenda. I was not trying to list São Paulo first, but, rather I was trying to go by the city proper concept; which I believed to be the most accurate portrayal of a city, as other cities in the metropolitan areas maintain their own identities separate from the core cities. The Americas are much more than the "10 largest urban centers;" and having a whole section that is a table of the largest urban centers is unnecessary. If anything, prose is warranted in the section, and should focus more on infrastructure, culture, and history of the urban centers. But then again the city's articles provide that information and thus it is unnecessary. It is boosterism plain and simple. It would better be integrated in a general population section. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are more than 10 cities in the Americas. However, tables (and especially Top 10 tables) are very useful and widely used here in Wikipedia. They help summarize information for subsections, help reducing the article KB size (especially when used in the form of templates) and provide the reader a quick reference about a topic. If the user is interested in learning more about a particular topic, they can always click the "main article" headers. It is still hypocritical to try to blank a whole section that you agreed with and even edit-warred for. Just add more cities, I honestly believe that's the best solution if you are really concerned about "boosterism". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not hypocritical but reflects greater understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. It would still be a form of boosterism. An article on a large continent should not focus on the ten largest cities/metropolitan areas/urban areas. There are no such tables in the Asia, Eurasia, Europe, Africa, or Australia articles. At most, the content should be converted to prose and merged into a population section. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

America/Americas redux

I would like to discuss again the point mention below about the name of America... why would you make such a distinction America/the Americas.. It is not everybody else's fault that some people don't know that they live in a given country which is part of America but it is NOT America by itself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing... people from Europe, Asia or other continents such as America (yes America is a continent not a country dah!) that are reading the info provided on this page by Wikipedia, please note that this info is wrong and others are not allowed to modified it. America is a continent, name given by Amerigo Vespucci when arrived at the south of theses lands. America is not a country it is a continent formed by different countries such as Canada, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, USA, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

America

America---- a continent of the western hemisphere ( also called the Americas) consisting of the two great land masses, North America and South America, joined by the narrow isthmus of Central America, Oxford American Dictionary, college edition.

Having said this, OF America means the United States is part of a continent named AMERICA. The term Americas( generalizing) when used in plural form means all the countries in the western hemisphere are consider America, therefore, all people in this hemisphere are Americans. At the time of early European exploration, the term Americas does not make sense because the western hemisphere( as known for these land masses)had no boundaries ( no countries). So it is correct to think of the whole land masses which include North, Central, South and Caribbean as America.--Rayjohn17 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayjohn17 (talk • contribs)

Repeating the same thing over and over is not the best way of making a point. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll see that similar arguments have been advanced a number of times already without gaining acceptance. Deor (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to correct it. Deor, you and other people have a right to your own opinion. Not to many people accept your ideas also. However, one does not need a college degree to understand of the term America. Your reliable resource is also not accepted. People change meanings of terms for their own use or satisfaction. --Rayjohn17 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet, somehow the reliable sources, and the majority of the English speaking world, have managed to disagree with you. Weird.LedRush (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me something I haven't read from you people; that is all you can say! The English speaking people is not the world; Tell me why they don't agree. I also worked around with English speaking people. Not all of them agree with what you say. In fact, buddy I was in US Navy and some people there do not even know where the word came from , to where it got applied; they even think Columbus arrieved in the US; people here seem to follow with what they hear. If they see or hear something popular they just follow with no clue, kind of ignorance, don't you think so. Instead of just talking for the English speaking people, you educated me in your own thoughts and eduacation what does it really mean America not something you read or some one else said. Show me that I am wrong. It has nothing to do with speaking English or Spanish. Look, put yourself in the other side and just think what it means when somone tells you your not American because you were not born in the US but you know you were born in the continent that has the word America( North, Central and South). And I know at some point, even here in the US people tought as America as been the continent before someone decided to be differrent. Now, they trying to say that Cental America is North America and that is funny. And it has nothing to do with the panama canal. North America begings at isthmus of Mexico and South America begins at the isthmus of Panama. That is why Central America is the isthmus connecting North America an South America. This is a topic I study here in College in the US from an English speaking professor. I was born in Latin america and I know what It is. Tell that to a native born Central American and he will tell you he is a Central American not North American. Anyway I was just surfing the web and came about this page a few days ago. I am not trying to change anything or your beliefs but people here seem to be having a dicussion of the matter so I decided to write my own thoughts. I am not taking nothing way from the US . It's a great country. But people here need to be more down to earth. People here, Most, not all think what they say goes and period. They think they are always correct.--Rayjohn17 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TL:DR. However, English Wikipedia is geared towards encyclopedic content as described by native speakers of English and as evidenced by English language sources. If you disagree with that policy, this is not the place to air your disagreements. And certainly doing so and insulting everyone who disagrees with you is not the way to go.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the US doesn't represent the community native English speakers either as there are Ireland, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa among others. However I agree that issue has been discussed to death and obviously while Americas is non ambiguous, the meaning of America/Americans is ambiguous and in doubt depends on the context. There's also no doubt that it is used as a common synonym of the US. This whole of battle over term is somewhat pointless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

When did I say that the US represents the community of native English speakers? What a weird thing to say.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Question: Are Rayjohn17 and Kmhkmh the same user? Because Kmhkmh suddenly seems to be answering in behalf of Rayjohn (a very recently created account). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not, I don't speak on behalf of anyone but my own. However Rayjohn17 touches upon a point that has at least some merit. WP (as in international encyclopedia in English) should avoid an US centric view of the word America (primarily relying on US American sources rather than sources of the (English speaking) world). There is even an English speaking country in South America (Guyana), though I don't know whether they'd use the term Americans to refer to themselves. However as I've pointed above already, this (and most of the archived discussion) are somewhat pointless, as the ambiguity of the term America and its common use as a synonym for the US are both facts which aren't subject to dispute and the current description in the article's lead is correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's focus is on english language reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, but they are not restriction to US or British publications. Also it is about reliable/reputable sources on the English language, whether those sources themselves are in English is another matter and not always needed. Given a (roughly) equal quality/reliability/notability of 2 sources, the source written in English is preferred, but that's about it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Commonname. LedRush (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that guideline, it has however nothing to do with my posting above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources business is a red herring. The fact is that en.wp is an English-language encyclopedia and thus represents the preponderance of usage in the English language. Usage in other languages is represented in other versions of Wikipedia, as one can see by visiting the interwiki links in the article. Deor (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point above, I was not talking about the usage of the term in other languages, but about non English sources describing the usage of the English term. There are plenty of academic sources on the English language which are not written in English.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia aproach to information is based on cientific knowledge, not politics. America is a continet, that is an elementary school basics, please correct the wrong Americas term is only for US people, the world has a few continents, one of them is America. Pepeleyva (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---

As an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary, I believe Wikipedia shoud focus on scientific facts rather on usage of words. Even if widely used, an incorrect terminology should not be accepted here. Needless to say, semantic issues are very welcome in a special subsection, but not in the main title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 November 2011

N Not done - no request made - Copy and past from Perspectives on Haiti: Looking at the Past to Understand the Present removed.

Vladi Dadi (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange choice of name

Why is this page called "Americas"? I mean in plural. Clearly, "America" is the correct name. --Oddeivind (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, no one feed the troll.LedRush (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, Oddeivind has been editing on Wikipedia for many years. For you to label him as a "troll" is a personal attack. Oddeivind, there's a discussion in the thread above about this. Nightw 09:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Population

The population numbers are a little strange. There is a division throughout the article between north and south america. The numbers for population include central america in north america, and this makes at least some sense since the tectonic plate for central america is the north american plate. But the Caribbean is not a part of north america, at least not geologically (politically it is as much a part of south america as north america). Not sure how to handle it (and sourced numbers instead of just stating a number would be nice), but I'd vote to remove the Caribbean from the population totals entirely, perhaps like this:

• North america ~490 million
• South america ~385 million
• Caribbean ~39 million

--— robbie ^{page talk} 13:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

American as a useful demonym, reverts by IP user 200.106.16.11

My edits are each well-explained in their edit summaries, and supported by accepted sources in the article and the MOS. IP user 200.106.16.11 has been simply reverting all of them, with edit summaries which reveal ignorance of the content the sources and disregard of the MOS. I will restore my other supported edits, leave the IP user's re-addition of demonym American in the infobox, and allow the editors to hash through the demonym issue again. – RVJ (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Looks as though your edits are supported by CyberCobra, Deor, and maybe LedRush.

I did move one ref and tagged the claim it had supported; at least from the quote, it looks as though it talks about historical uses of the term, but does not claim that such usage is primarily historical. A couple other refs in the lead did support what they were cited for either. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I support RVJ's edits. Deor (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From your edits, where you appear to be accepting RVJ's edits. If you don't, we need to review this: RVJ was edit warring, even after my warning, but I let it go because he appeared to have the tacit support of a couple other editors. — kwami (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good evening, everyone. This blowup started while I was finishing up my edits. I flipped one (1) edit by the IP user, which was unrelated to what I was working on. I recognised that IP user was reverting, with no edit summary, something which I thought was settled recently on talk. (I was mistaken. What I'd seen played out in a series of edit summaries by other editors with an IP user.)

IP user then retaliated by reverting all of my edits, with summaries which made varying levels of sense, suggesting he'd lost his cool. I rolled that back; Kwamikagami stepped in.

I then explained what I would do here, and proceeded to make a compromise edit. I restored the edits which IP user had reverted in anger, while including that which IP user originally wanted. If there was edit warring, I wasn't doing it.

My two cents on the demonym issue: I'm personally okay with American included as a demonym. Though, if I were editing it, I might do this way:

Demonym: North American | South American, American

...with a reference note attached, briefly qualifying with the issues in English. To support and qualify "American", I'd make note of it in recent English in contexts where there is no confusion with the political demonym (e.g. colonial, archaeological, etc.).

Something better than the M-W source attached would support it. While Merriam-Webster dictionaries order the earliest or dated definitions first, and the modern definitions last, there are no usage notes in the online entry cited. – RVJ (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to fight with you, I think that we can make a deal and I support your idea, but I think that American is more than enough because North American and South American are the demonyms for those specific landmasses and not for America(s), obviously with a reference note attached. Really... American is necessary in this article because we can't ignore the fact that this word is also the demonym for America(s) and not only for the United States, and as I said before... this has sources. [anon - unsigned]

I have to say that makes sense. We don't use "North American" as the demonym for the Americas; rather, we specify whether s.o. is North/Central/South American. That would be better as an explanatory footnote IMO. It's a bit much for the info box. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been several days since we had this discussion and it seems that LedRush is the only one showing opposition against adding the demonym "American" to the infobox. If no one has anything else to comment about the subject, I suggest we should put it back where it was with its corresponding sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.184.178 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The last two edits on the subject were against inclusion, and no one has argued against those on the merits.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who started removing the demonym, and it has always been there, so you're the only one against this.

This is the English Wikipedia, and "American" is not a demonym of "the Americas" in English. We make this clear in the body of the article, which the lede and the infobox are supposed to reflect.LedRush (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OED: American, a. and n.

(əˈmɛrɪkən)

B. n.

1. An American Indian.

2. A native of America of European descent; esp. a citizen of the United States. Now simply, a native or inhabitant of North or South America (often with qualifying word, as Latin American, North American); a citizen of the United States.

MWCD: ¹American ... n (1578)

1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America

2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America

3 : a citizen of the U.S.

It's the only demonym for the Americas. It would seem that the dictionaries at least agree on this. — kwami (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is the problem with this, American has two common meanings. Dictionaries and encyclopaedias are very clear with this:

• An American is someone who is a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States. (noun)

An example of an American is Abraham Lincoln.

• An American is someone who lives in North or South America. (noun)

An example of an American is someone who lives in Brazil.

• American describes a person or thing from the United States of America. (adjective)

An example of some things that are described as American are apple pie and baseball.

• American refers to any person or thing related to, or aboriginal to, North or South America. (adjective)

An example of people that are referred to as American are Inuits.

From: Yourdictionary.com - American Special:Contributions/200.121.197.25 21:59, 21 January 2012

I've reverted back to the pre-edit-war version, and users here should stick to BRD. Here is a good list of sources that state the opposite of what's being added. Rennell435 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, we directly contradict it in the main article. We shouldn't have things in the infobox and lede that are misleading from what we have in the main body.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, restored the demonym per discussion here, w a link to the usage section. Modified that slightly to avoid the contradiction, in line w RS's and the discussion LedRush Rennell linked to. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the most recent entries have argued against usage with evidence, it seems oddto make the change without addressing the concerns.LedRush (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments were over the space of only a few days. I don't see how it matters which ones are the most recent. Also, the finding of the move request was that America should not be used specifically for he US. All the other articles on inhabited continents have demonym entries. It's undeniable that "American" is the demonym of America; the question is how to adequately convey that that is not the primary meaning of the word in modern English. I think a usage note is probably adequate, but I'm sure we could come up with s.t. more explicit if you feel it is needed. — kwami (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a single, English lanaguage RS which states that "American" is a current demonym for "the Americas" (or "America" when that word is used to mean "the Americas"). Maybe they're out there, but I can't find them.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED and MWCD? — kwami (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There's Walker (2001) African roots / American cultures: Africa in the creation of the Americas. (Sometimes this sense is dab'd as "Pan-American" in the book.) That's just an example, of course: if you want a statement, that's what dictionaries are for.

Oh, according to Langley (2005) The Americas in the modern age, the LOC subject definition of "Americans" is "citizens of the United States who are living outside the United States." — kwami (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "I haven't been able to find a single" —did you see the link Rennell gave? Nightw 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes.LedRush (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "American" can refer to people from the Americas. No, that usage isn't nearly as common as referring to people from the USA. And no, neither of those things are going to change based on what Wikipedia says or does not say. I don't see what's hard about this.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)