Talk:Americas

Current wording in the lead is not NPOV

If "Americas" is indeed the most common name (in English, that is), that still doesn't preclude an edit such as mine, which merely gives the most common, and traditional, 'alternative'. What's so wrong with my edit? Shouldn't you be able to articulate it? SamEV (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• It puts way too much emphasis on an extreme minority position. Although "technically correct", it creates a misleading impression that "America" is somehow equal to "The Americas" when referring to the Americas, which it isn't. We're trying to write an encyclopaedia article that educates people as accurately as possible, and the archaic usage of "America" to mean "The Americas" requires a little bit of explanation to not confuse our readers. WilyD 13:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The use "America" is also already included, right in the first paragraph. It doesn't need more emphasis than it has.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with WilyD and Cuchullain: proposed edits are not an advantage over the prior long-standing text. Much of this article already deals with the usage and commonality of America versus (the) Americas, and placing this upfront clarifies nothing. As well, the proposed change is grammatically unsound, which if read aloud doesn't make sense: "... America[,] are the lands ..." Moreover, the Manual of Style recommends linking the first instance of a word, which the proposed version doesn't do. Quizimodo (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And when did these sources become extremist or archaic, WilyD?Encyclopedia Britannica (Americas, "also called America the two continents, North and South America, of the Western Hemisphere."), Encarta ("America, second largest isolated landmass of the earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere."), as well as Merriam Webster and the American Heritage dictionary, which I cited? SamEV (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I said "archaic" not "extremist" - obviously my offhand comments are coloured by my use of the Canadian English dialect, where one could be jerseyed (or worse) for using America when they mean The Americas. Apart from the occasional bizarre requests by Latin Americans here to call the Americas America, you really only see America meaning the Americas in specific historical contexts, like "Columbus discovered America" (although you also often see footnotes that Columbus didn't actually travel to America at all, but the Bahamas et al.). That archaic uses of language persist in dictionaries or encyclopaedias long after they've disappeared from actual use is not particularly surprising. WilyD 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WilyD, these are current works of reference. Verifiability, not "truth", remember? SamEV (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which indeed is why we present it at all - but NPOV is part of our policy constellation, and contains the UNDUE feature, which forces us to place things in context. WilyD 15:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WilyD, you're going round in circles. UNDUE refers to extremist sources, which you said those are not. So what is so undue about stating what the very reputable sources on which Wikipedia asks us to rely state themselves? SamEV (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue excludes extremist sources, but it also governs how we render other sources - in the end, it's really about how what's implicit in the text is as important as what's explicit in the text. The opening paragraph already notes that the Americas may be referred to as America, something that I support in spite of my distaste for it - it is the correct way to handle it. Impressions created by text are as important as things said explicitly, and it needs to be clear in the opening that "America" means "The United States", even though in some contexts its abused. WilyD 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of impressions, the tortured language employed in the lead jumps out as a quite obvious effort to avoid saying, plainly, that America also means the Western Hemisphere. I doubt it fools anyone. Including you. SamEV (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wily's reading of UNDUE is exactly correct. Each view should be represented in proportion to its prominence. Since "America" is potentially confusing and less common it is dealt with on its own, but do note that it's still discussed quite plainly right there in the first paragraph. It's silly to read some conspiracy into this simply because various other editors happen to disagree with you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wily and Cuchulla, really if there is an issue it needs to be dealt with at America where I would not oppose putting the US above this article but this is not the America article, its the Americas and indeed I would question the weight given to the word America int eh first paragraph as clearly nobody calls the US Americas (whereas everyone calls it America in English). Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, those encyclopedias, of far more reliability than this one still, consider 'America = Western Hemisphere' a prominent enough view to list right in the first sentence. As for conspiracy (!), no conspiracy is necessary when good old-fashioned systemic bias gets the job done. SamEV (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't understand your objection. You act as if the "America" use is not dealt with at all, even though it's right there in the first paragraph. You think including it in the first sentence would eliminate bias, but putting it in the third sentence where the use is explained does not? I cordially disagree, and it would appear general consensus favors the current version, though a number of editors have weighed in who don't always agree, like me and Wily. Please note that there are differences between Wikipedia and those other encyclopedias you've linked to. For instance Britannica articles don't begin with a sentence, as we do, but with a definition of the title, so they don't have to deal with the awkward language of "The Americas or America are...".--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is how it is dealt with, which is currently in a manner that misrepresents the alternative as fringe, when it clearly is not. Having "America" alongside "The Americas" in the opening sentence would be best, I maintain, but it would work in the third sentence if the latter were not such a POV mess that is lost on no one. Still, for the first sentence, the matter of language is a non-issue, as it takes no great powers of creativity to come up with alternatives, for example: "The Americas, or America, refers to the lands of the Western Hemisphere", or "The continents of North and South America are together known as The Americas, or America." And so on. SamEV (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other commentary aside, for which I generally concur with W and C, the current edition is hardly a 'POV mess', particularly when numerous sources later in the article iterate said usage/ambiguity of the term. And I hardly see how the current edition misrepresents the alternative as fringe: after all, it is in the 1st paragraph. Quizimodo (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"POV mess" applies even more to the "America/Americas" subsection. Who ever refers to the US as "The Americas"? Yet it is brought up insinuated there and it's a complete red herring. Both it and the first paragraph mention "America" in phrasing that conveys a sense of "fringe", as opposed to its being another respected definition, one of very long standing. SamEV (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. In fact, to highlight this, the Oxford Companion to the English Language indicates the following in its entry for 'America' (pp. 33-4):

• Since the 16c, a name of the western hemisphere, often in the plural Americas and more or less synonymous with the New World. Since the 18c, a name of the United States of America. The second sense is now primary in English: "The American president of the American University of Beirut was murdered because he was the symbol of America" ....

and

• However, the term is open to uncertainties: the name The American Heritage Publishing Company (New York) refers to the US alone; in the company's publication The Golden Book of America (1974), a children's book about the US, the first chapter asks "Did Columbus Discover America?", without making it clear that a different sense of the word is needed when discussing Columbus.

The article already equitably deals with this, including the relevant subsection. And, as pointed out above, your edits placed undue weight on this minority notion. Nothing since, through either argumentation or sourcing, has changed that perspective. So, until you can compel otherwise ... Quizimodo (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And so Oxford does. But I hope you realize that other sources do exist. Britannica uses "America" alongside Americas right off the bat.[1] Merriam Webster's definition of America=US is the third definition, not the principal one.[2] Encarta's article for the landmass is titled "America", not "Americas".[3] Your arguments haven't disproved any of that. SamEV (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

America is a continent, while "the Americas" is just a bad joke.

(There might be some strange formulations in my comment below, for english is not my native language. I beg your pardon.)

Look, it's really not that hard to understand. America is the continent which was discovered by Columbus and named after Amerigo Vespucci. For that reason, "America" is the term which is used to describe the American continent in German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and many other languages - including English. The name United States of America even proves that - it denominates those states of the continent which are a part of the free, republican Union founded in the late 18th century. Back then, the word "America" in the name of the state couldn't mean anything other than the continent, for the nation in its definite form didn't even exist, and expressed the desire to build a Union of Republics within America. Hence, when the modern American calls his country "America", he's just using - be it consciously or unconsciously - a mere figure of speech, a totum pro parte which is not an actual name. Therefore, the United States are the United States, and America is not a country, but a continent which should be refered to with its proper name in Wikipaedia, while one should avoid the term "The Americas", which is only a neologism, which expresses US-American bias and which is simply irritating in an international context.

Besides, the complaint that "America" is too ambiguous and should be avoided because of that is just nonsense. Europe is ambiguous too, for it can describe the European Union, the continent except the British Isles and the continent including them (and also a bunch of other things). But in spite of that, nobody with a sane mind would refer to Europe as "The Europes". Thus Wikipaedia should, while mentioning the term "The Americas" and linking to the United States, call the American continent simply "America".

Greetings, 141.35.186.133 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"America" is NOT just one continent, it is 2 separate land masses on 2 different tectonic plates. This is another reason that "The Americas" is more widely used; not just to differentiate it between America as the USA. I do realize that some countries teach America as one continent, but it is more 2 continents than Europe and Asia are. I personally never use the term "America" when referring to the United States; however, when referring to both the American continents, "The Americas" denotes that you're speaking of both continents.Kman543210 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the country name "United States of America" implies that there is a place named America. It is not called "United States of the Americas" or "United States of North America". It doesn't matter if it is a continent or not, it just exists just like Western Europe, Eurasia and the Indian (sub)continent.

Some people, based in history, say America is one continent. Some others say it is two continents based on land masses (well, nobody call himself a Eurasian). In both cases, America goes from Kaffeklubben Island in the North to the islands of Southern Thule in the South. This cannot be defined as the “West Hemisphere”, because “West hemisphere” also includes part of Europe and Africa, and is based in a “euro-centric” conception. Some others say it is a country, a.k.a U.S.A., and then solve the semantic problem creating “the Americas” continent. This is may be right for English spoken citizens that represent 1/3 of “the Americas” population, but it is not an official name as "America". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.251.195 (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC) UZ:ozbek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.128.2 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the first comment. America is the name of the continent. Period. You can further subdivide it into two, or even more subcontinents (just as Europe). The important thing here is that The whole big mass of land in this part of the world should be called "America", despite the fact that a lot of people call it, in a wrong way, The Americas. You just can't go against history. That would be like saying: "Well, the name Russia makes me get confused for some reason. Why don't I just start calling it something else?" Well, no, because its name doesn't depend on what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.129.27 (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the continents are North and South America in almost all English-speaking countries, period/full stop. By the way, there are other both European and Asian countries that use the 7 continent convention. I don't understand why people can't understand that there are other ideas out there in naming and describing continents. North and South America are on 2 completely different tectonic plates and are barely connected by a small strip. Africa connects with the other landmass with more of a connector, but most people consider it a separate continent. There is nothing wrong with the convention of naming it as one landmass just as there is nothing wrong with naming it 2 different landmasses. Not everyone agrees whether to consider Europe and Asia 2 different continents even though they are 1 landmass. Things change as we learn more about the Earth, tectonic plates, science, etc., so there is no reason to say just because they used to call it just America that we shouldn't now consider it 2 continent and call them the Americas. Kman543210 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, that "small strip" it's called Central America and it makes a huge difference regarding the geography of the American Continent. First of all and it makes the two landmasses of North and South America become subcontinents and one landmass. Even though Central America is considered in some circles as part of North America, geographically it is considered that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec divides North America from the southern part of the continent on its 200 km (125 miles) of extension, and that the Isthmus of Panama divides South America from the northern part of the continent by the Gulf of Urabá. What's left in the middle is Central America.

Furthermore, you are wrong saying that "Africa connects with the other landmass with more of a connector" since the only connection con the Middle East is through the Suez Canal which is only 163 km (101 miles) long, only 100 miles less than the connection on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Central America doesn't belong to North America politically nor geographically, it's a region by its own, it's the bridge between the two big landmasses of the Great American Continent! Without Central America, there would be 2 clearly separate and independent continents.

Like a lot of years ago!

Quoting from the Isthmus of Panama wiki: "Before the present-day isthmus was created, water covered the area where Panama is today. A significant body of water (referred to as the Central American Seaway) separated the continents of North and South America, allowing the waters of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans to mix freely". 216.29.249.46 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my comment about the small strip of land. I wasn't saying that Central America is a small strip of land; I was comparing the width of the Panama Canal to the Suez Canal between Africa and the Middle East. Both are man-made canals and both separate 2 different land masses. My point was that the Panama Canal is shorter by about 50 miles than the Suez Canal, so if that connection makes North and South America one American continent, then Africa, Europe, and Asia are all one continent as well. By the way, I'm not saying that's wrong either. There is good reason to consider North and South America as one continent because they are connected; so is Africa and "Eurasia", but my point is that there is good reason to consider them separate continents as well because they are both on different tectonic plates. I also was not disagreeing that Central America is a region on it's own, but a distinction can be made between a continent and a region on a continent. I personally don't think either convention of naming or describing the continents is wrong; they are just two different ways of distinguishing continents. Kman543210 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, either naming the entire landmass "America" or "The Americas" is correct. The most general problem arises when someone refers to a U.S. citizen as "an American", and in fact, believes that anyone from any other American country is not an American. This is a wrong assumption. Every person born either in Argentina, Brazil, The U.S. or Canada (to mention some) IS AN AMERICAN and this should not be misunderstood. The fact that there is no other way to refer to a U.S. citizen, other than "U.S. citizen" is a separate issue, and must not be an attempt to make the term "American" exclusive for U.S. citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.17 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, insulting the country and nationality of Argentinians, Brazilians and Canadians (and on Canada Day!) is not a productive way to have a dialogue. WilyD 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the insult. America is not a single country, but a continent. I am not a U.S. citizen, but whenever I am asked the question (like on a plane, for instance): "Are you American?" y always answer "yes; I am a Mexican, hence, an American". This answer seems to disturb and confuse the flight attendants.... their problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.17 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just made an edit concerning this, and only then discovered this discussion (when will I learn to do that the right way around? :) ). However, I think my edit covers what is said here fairly well. Or maybe I should have made it clearer that South Americans regard themselves as Americans, also resulting in ambiguity.

Let me throw another stick into the henhouse: Is India not part of Asia because it is on a different tectonic plate? :) The point proven best by the above argumentation regarding America/Americas vs Europe/Eurasia/Africa is that it's a mess. One might argue that one naming convention would make more sense than the other, but it's not our job to pick one. We should just 'reflect what is out there', so to say, so put all major views in the article as being valid simply because large numbers of people hold them.

Btw, the article doesn't explicitly say where the plural came from. It suggests that it was used to disambiguate (in the English speaking world), but doesn't say. The tectonic plate argument can't have been the reason, because that is a much more recent discovery. So I can't think of a different reason for the introduction of the plural. Rather relevant, I'd say, if not essential. DirkvdM (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should be called America which is the real name of the continent, changing the name of a continent just to not confuse somebody is ridiculous, if you have 2 cities named Miami you have to stick to their real anme and not change one to Miamis, there is no real support on the Americas name, the name of this article have to be changed to America, and a link to the america as a term for US citizen should be put, the fac is that this article is confusing people already by having the americas as tittle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.249.194 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it true that the AMERICA name was given when Americo Vespucci was sailing around the South American coast? Then later this name was given to all the land found on this specific side of the Atlantic Ocean by the european monarchies. Then what are the U.S. citizens claiming for? They took a name given first to "South America". So, before the europeans or settlers arrived to this continent, what was the ethnicity of the people in this land? Did they find different races here, so we can now make a cultural difference too? Every history book I read talks about "indians"(another wrong name...) and every picture I see of the natives, I can notice about their common racial origin, either they are from Alaska or Tierra del Fuego... So, if for ethnicity at least on the original status, it is ONE land. This is the same reason why Europe is Europe and Africa is Africa. Now, geographically speaking, before the Panama Channel, Central America was a very solid "barely small strip" land, unifying the two big land masses at north and south. If it was true that these are a completely different land masses, then why to make the Panama Channel?? It is true that they belong to different tectonic plates, but not for this reason half California doesn't belong to U.S. because of the San Andreas Fault... So, come on!, don't be senseless!, AMERICA IS ONE ONLY CONTINENT (oh yes!, there are no 2 or such), and the plural is just a desambiguation invented by the U.S. in order to have some name to call themselves, as well as to make a difference from the southern countries. This article should be called AMERICA only, referring to the whole continent. Aeore (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning there is only one continent in the world -- Pangea -- because we are all genetically related.

You can make whatever argument you like -- it doesn't matter. You can make a valid argument for calling it one continent, I can make a valid argument for calling them two. Some people will make a valid argument for calling Central America a seperate continent, and others still will argue that the Carribean Islands are not part of any of those continents. Not to mention what we say about pesky Greenland....

The fact of the matter is that language is imprecise and we all categorise things differently. Wikipedia's job is not to decide who is "correct" but to summarise information on all common usages.

And for your information "The Americas" is a very old term indeed, not some modern "disambiguation". Please see also The Philippines, The Indies, The Antipodes, The West Indies for the provinence of this name form. When Europeans started travelling regularly to The Americas, they first went to the Carribean islands, so to them the New World was a collection of islands. The Americas is, as a term, about as old as "America".

Prof Wrong (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on!... Those are a group of Islands and that's why they're called in plural. As I said, North, Central and South America are a complete unified continent, therefore one only land mass. With the exception of the Panama Channel, which is man handmade. I know, this is not just only a modern disambiguation but old, but also currently it's instiled and popularized among the U.S. society and abroad due to their intl influence. At first colonial incursions, America was this whole land, and this name along with "West Indies" represented the colonies for every european monarchy, either Spanish, British, French and etc. Then later on, because of these cultural/language differences this continent started to be "The Americas". That's the origin of it, including geographical occupations. Of course, then later there's the regional subdivision like North, South, Caribbean and Central America. But it's a just regional SUBDIVISION taught in Geography. But geologically speaking, original human group and the name of America appearing in every component of this land (Anglo America, Latin America, South America, Central America, etc.) It seems that what we have more than this name in common, which is actually what this discussion is about. This article should reflect what the land, the people and the meaning at all is, inside this huge ground, filled with many places, many climates, many cultures, many colors of what this continent is actually made of. Not forgetting about the facts of course, and to include all regions, otherwise this will keep incomplete. We are talking about the continent here, not about U.S. and what they believe. (Although this is the obstacle...) Just start getting out of that bubble in what you're trapped in, and be more self-minded instead of accepting what a few people used to think in the past. Open your eyes to the truth, be objective and EVOLVE... Aeore (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should not say what one group wants it to say, but reflect everything everyone says. You are not everyone.

And please don't give me that nonsense about "objective" and "truth". There is no single agreed unambiguous technical definition of a continent. All is subjective here, and when dealing with subjectivity, Wikipedia publishes all major views. All of them.

The genetic makeup of the people is irrelevant -- the arabs live in Asia and North Africa. Black Africans do not live in North Africa. Does this make North Africa part of Asia? Are Lapland and the Basque Country seperate continents from the rest of Europe do to their distinct indigenous populations? Is Japan not part of Asia? Are North and South India on seperate continents? As I said, you can justify one thing, I can justify another. All is subjective here.

Prof Wrong (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it's being taught in different ways around the world. For example, in Russia: North and South Americas are two continents, but America is the part of the world. Also, Europe and Asia are the parts of the world, and Eurasia is the continent. Strictly according to the definition that continent is a huge landmass surrounded by water. It does not matter if there some small land connections between the continents. In Western Europe it is taught as one continent of America, etc. I'd like to see here together with the detailed explanation how the matter is being tought around the world, the notation accepted by professional geographic community. Do any real geographers attend here?--Minder10 (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all what a continent strictly is. What matters is that by the time the word "America" was created, it was conceived to describe both North America and South America. Or do you guys think that people back then debated on having separate names for them just because they lay on different tectonic plates? It can be true that North America and South America are not a continent (depends on how you define continent), but it doesn't matter. The main thing is that, regardless of what they are, the term America was created to refer to both masses, as can be seen and proved in countless ancient books and maps of the time of the colony. Of course there are very many differences between North and South America, culturally, ethnically, different languages; that`s why one can say Anglo America, Latin America, Central America, South America, Antilles, Ibero America, etc. You can arrange the countries in any form you like, and give the group the name you wish, but America shall be the name of the whole landmass. Take Asia for instance. Georgia is in Asia, as Nepal is. Both countries couldn't have less similarities. They may even lay on different plates, have different cultures, but both are part of Asia. Or Spain and Bangladesh. They are both in Eurasia, which just means that. It doesn`t mean or imply they could have anything else in common.

A woman from Jujuy, Argentina is as American as a child from Seattle, USA. One can be dark skinned, South American, speak Spanish, while the other is North American, white, protestant, speaks English. But, both are Americans. Greetings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.78.156 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Central America and the Antilles?

Central America is a fundamental part of the American Continent, and it NEEDS to be in this page. Central America makes North and South America one landmass. The Antilles deserve to be mentioned too as part of the continent, since they are an archipelago on the Caribbean sea, and can't be part of neither of the subcontinents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.29.249.46 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is already address in the very first sentence: consisting of the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions. The islands in the Caribbean are the not the only islands. Central America is not a separate landmass and is considered a region, hence "associated islands and regions". I can see mentioning the Caribbean islands since they are so numerous instead of just "associated islands." Kman543210 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You said it, Central America is a region or America (or americas) and should mentioned on the header, expanding the sentence with their associated islands and regions 216.29.249.46 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Central America is considered as a separate Geopolitically region of the American Continent (or Americas) and needs to be mentioned as such in this wiki. You can even check the wiki of Central America. "Central America (Spanish: Centroamérica or América Central) is a central geographic region of the Americas." 216.29.249.46 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Central America and the Caribbean are obviously a part of the Americas. They are also a part of North America, which is where they are covered.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded

This article need lots of clean up. It needs a History section, a Physiography section and basically the rest of the sections need to be expanded. Compare to the Spanish version of this article[4] MarcoCROH (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think {{expand}} is actually the tag you're looking for. This being English Wikipedia, most of the content is in North America or South America. WilyD 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, thank you. Regarding to history, we should find information about the relationship that all the "Americas" have had in the past, and find a common content for North, Central and South America. We can also mention all kinds of international relationships agreements, such as CAFTA and NAFTA. Other topics can be mentioned too, like The Monroe Doctrine, civil wars, independences, colony, culture... MarcoCROH (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Atheism in South America

The article states "only 4 percent of South Americans have no belief in a God", with no quote. According to the Pew Forum (http://pewforum.org/world-affairs/countries/), the two South American countries they list, Chile and Brazil (the most populous country in South America with about 20% of the total population), have 8.3% and 7.4% "non-affiliated" respectively. Having lived in Argentina, I would venture that the numbers are even higher there.

I did not change the article because I don't have hard numbers, but the 4% quoted seems clearly wrong (too low). What should we do?

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alefu (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-affiliated does not mean atheist. They may be affiliated to traditional beliefs. I agree however to find a reliable source for this.--Hamster X (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How can 'non-affiliated' mean 'affiliated'? I'm surprised we don't have a non-affiliated article. Or unaffiliated. Wiktionary doesn't help much here either. As I understand the term, it means 'not religious'. And maybe that term should be used because it is clearest. Another issue is what sort of source one uses. Official state-sources are often from the birth-certificate, which the parents fill in. Which is at best an indication of what religion, if any, that person has later on. And also, if people are askes directly, they may claim to be catholic, despite never going to church or having ever read the bible. That holds especially for Latin America, I believe, where for many catholicism is more of a cultural background than an actual practised religion. DirkvdM (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it,non-affiliated and unaffiliated in terms of religion refer to independent churches that are not member parishes or a wider church or communion (such as Rome, a Synod, a Bishop, etc). If three non-affiliated churches joined together under a single banner, they would thenceforth by affiliated to their new joint body.

Prof Wrong (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding text from Spanish WP

Whoffmannm is attempting to insert what seems largely a (not so great) translation of part of the Spanish wikipedia article on America. I'm taking it back out. It appears that the whole point of this lengthy passage is to come to an explanation as to why it is that Anglophones refer to the western hemisphere as "the Americas" instead of "America". This is purely original research as near as I can tell. The Spanish wikipedia article is not sourced for this argument (or indeed any of the translated text Whoffmannm is adding) and citing another WP article does not remotely qualify as a reliable source. CAVincent (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Those particular edits have also been reverted by different editors, but because Whoffmannm violated the 3-revert rule, he is trying to get around it by using the anonymous IP address of 84.21.34.232 after being warned. It's not just that some of the edits are being sourced from the Spanish version, but there is some POV words in there as well as there is an entire article dedicated to the word American already. Kman543210 (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all I did not try to get around any rule, I simply forgot to log in. Second, what is POV? Please show where it is stated that the usage of versions of Wikipedia in other languages is forbidden. Nobody is arguing the fact that the entire approach to the explanation of the usage of the word “American” has its own article, I simply added a link to said site. The paragraph you erased does not contain false information whatsoever, so there is no reason to wipe it away. 84.21.34.232 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC) There! I am now logged in. Last comment was mine, too. Whoffmannm (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are wikis reliable sources?. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be more readily excluded as a collosal failure of neutral point of view principle, espeically that about the undue weight clause, given the broadness of the subject and the naming being of concern to only a few Latin American anti-nationalists. WilyD 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this, I'll reproduce a message I wrote on my talk page: That stuff he [Whoffmannm] insists on including in the "Naming" section doesn't really have anything to do with the naming of the continent(s). I think he's just another in the long line of users who want to push the idea that "America" (singular), not "Americas," is the name of the totality of North and South America (which it probably is in Germany, where he lives), and that the use of it to refer to the United States is an imperialist plot. The whole matter of the usage of "America" and "Americas," both in English and in other languages, seems fairly well explained in the article as it stood, and as I said above, it has little to do with the origin of the name "America." Deor (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this failure of POV or whatsoever could be more properly applied to your case, WilyD, given the fact that YOU opine that the naming discussion concerns only "a few Latin American anti-nationalists". Could that be any "less neutral point of view"? Let us analyze your "a few Latin American anti-nationalists" phrase stepwisely: - "A few" you say? It is the majority of Latin Americans who claim the America is a name for the entire landmass. - It is not only Latin Americans who think so. Actually it is the other way around. It is only the U.S. Americans who think it is not so. Check the "Real Academia Española" from Spain if not. Spain is not Latin America, just in case you don't know. I am not Latin American, either. Most of the people I know also do agree that America is the continet(s), not just ONE country within it. - What do you mean "anti-nationalists"? Do you even know what that means?

The fact is, the point of view established as standard in the US regarding "America" is actually not the same as the one in the rest of the world.

This was user Whoffmannm. I don`t really know if I'm currently logged in or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.78.156 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is the English language wikipedia, so the RAE would not have discussion about English terminology (I have a copy of the most recent RAE 2-volume dictionary). What "the rest of the world" uses as a name for the Americas is touched on, but since this is the English wikipedia, it doesn't need further detail in this article, especially since there are separate articles already that cover the subject. Please respect linguistic differences rather than applying foreign-language terminology to English. Kman543210 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American. I do, however, have a command of the English Language (she's a harsh mistress) and know that the English Language name of the pair of continents is "The Americas", as does everyone else who speaks English. I also know that "America" is the same of a country - I've travelled there, and can attest that it's real.

I also know that placenames are not always the same in different languages. London is Londres on fr.wiki - and that's correct - the city has a different French and English name. The same is true of Roma and Rome; there are many other examples. This is perfectly regular. When I'm writing in English, I use English names, when I write in other languages, I may write other names.

It is very hard to get at the POV you're trying to push. In form, it seems to be very supportive of American Imperialism in some ways, and yet very anti-Anglophone on the other - I tend towards believing the former; that it comes out of the Monroe Doctrine and the OAS attitude that the Americas should effectively be colonies of America. I could be wrong on this, since it depends on a well recognised lie (that any English speakers disagree about the usage of America; that "I am from America, I am an American" are ambigious sentences). Most Latin Americans use América for the name of the Continente and the Americas for the name of the Continent, because they're honest and knowledgeable. Denigrating them by implying they're stupid or ignorant is simply not appropriate. WilyD 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WilyD, from what you have written one can say that you tend to assume that the way you think is always the right way. Sometimes you are indeed correct, but you say only the partial truth, and that's why there should always be someone double-checking your contributions to Wikipedia, just to prevent Neutral Point of View Failures. "The Americas" in English does denote the whole landmass, but the term "America", although less common, denotes that too, as it used to be when the term "America" was first coined. I am by no means anti-Anglophone, and I don't quite understand what makes you think that. I don't support any U.S. American Imperialism, if that is what you mean, because I truly do not see the United States as an Empire. I like the United States as a country, I have some very good friends who come from there. What I don't like is when people insist on pushing their ideas without taking into account the background and the history behind things. If you don't believe there are English speakers who would consider that "I am from America, I am an American" are ambiguous sentences, then you probably have not had enough contact with the world yet as to express your opinions on this matter. That is exactly what I was talking about in the previous paragraph: What bothers me is people who assume that what they have seen is the sole truth and try to push their ideas regardless of what the larger panorama looks like. Again you do the same mistake in your last sentence when stating that most Latin Americans use the Americas for the continent(s). Where do you get that from? Latin Americans would most likely refer to "América" as "North America and South America" IF not "America" at all. You can confirm that by reading a similar discussion on the Spanish version of this very same article. I regret not having further proof than that at the moment. I don't know where you get those ideas of me implying Latin Americans to be stupid or ignorant. On the contrary, from my very personal experience I have to say that among my American friends (yes, in the English Language the adjective "American" may refer to someone from either South of North America as well), I have found the ones from Latin American countries to be considerably more aware of culture and knowledge from countries other than their own as the ones from the USA or Canada. Greetings,

Whoffmannm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.78.156 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly insulting the education and cultural knowledge of people from the US (and now Canadians! who picks on Canadians!?), as you have done, will probably not win favorable reactions. Does Spanish wikipedia have non-native Spanish speakers insulting people for using words according to their generally accepted Spanish meanings? Why do you feel the need to insult native English speakers here? At any rate, none of your comments pertain to the problem of the text in question, which is that it is unsourced and appears to be speculative original research. CAVincent (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is insulting Canadians or native English speakers here. I simply expressed a very personal experience as a result of having interacted with a reduced number of Canadians. Being a mere opinion, it can not be extrapolated to the whole country. For instance, I once attended a gathering of people from all over the world, where some Canadians, Latin Americans among other were present. I remember the Canadians had the hardest time telling most capital of European countries or which language was spoken in which country. This does not mean that every Canadian is like that. I respect Canada for being the country where I learned English. If Mr. A says Milan is a city in France and Mr. B says it is in Italy, and then I say Mr. B’s answer was better than that of Mr. A, I am not insulting Mr. A. I am just reporting what I am perceiving. It does not mean that I think Mr. B’s family is better educated than Mr. A’s. I don’t know whether Spanish wikipedia has people insulting each other. You should know better since you seem to have been here longer than I have. --Whoffmannm (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you know much Canadian Culture, CAVincent, you'll probably grok why Canadians get into a kerfuffle when some shit-disturber does something like label us Americans. A significant part of the cultural identity is differentiating between Canadians and Americans, so one gets uppity. Given that there's no actual argument to be made in favour of making the whole article about the naming being related to American Imperialism (whether you believe it's ta one way or t'other), what else is left other than ethnic insults and ad hominems? WilyD 02:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In English, using "America" or "American" to denote the landmasses of North America and South America is a pretty clear sign the person supports American Imperialism.

Latin Americans mostly speak Spanish or Portuguese; I know América is used to denote the Americas in Spanish, so I imagine that's what most Latin Americans would use. I'm not sure about Portuguese. A Latin American speaking English would say the Americas, to be understood. This is not "my opinion", it's very easy to determine, and what anyone looking honestly will determine. It's true that in an average day (today, say) I only talk with ... two Latin Americans, both of whom were Chilean, so that's probably a terrible sample. But we all have access to the resources of the world. Scan your intertubes, read a book, watch a television programme or hang out in a coffeeshop. Then come here and be honest, and we can all accept that the term "America", used in English, is unambigious. It's the United States of America, much as Mexico is unambigiously the United States of Mexico, even though there's a New Mexico and so forth. To write an encyclopaedia together, we all just need to be honest with each other. WilyD 02:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Using “America” to denote the entire landmass is no sign at all of supporting any imperialism. The term “America”, you like it or not, was originally used to denote the whole landmass in general, and the Caribbean Islands and some inner explored territories mostly (but not only) in Central and South America. The usage of “America” to denote exclusively the United States of America can not have begun earlier than late in the 18th century; that is, a couple of centuries after the word was coined in the first place. Hence, using “America” for the whole landmass is a sign of using the words in the sense they were originally meant to be used. Not acknowleding that fact and thinking it has to do with some sort of imperialism is a sign of lack of history awareness and poor culture. A Latin American (or a Chinese or whoever) could say “The Americas” or “America” to refer to the same thing when speaking English. It will depend on whom he is talking with to determine how well he is understood. Of course there are places on Earth where “America” will first and (probably only) be related to the USA, but that doesn’t mean that that is the only possibility. To write an encyclopaedia for the world, the point of view of the entire globe has to be taken into account, and not try to impose personal conceptions. For further discussion on this topic, I would recommend to create a new entry, since we are no longer discussing the usage of the spanish wikipedia. --Whoffmannm (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

While we write for the whole world, we write in 21st century English, not 16th century English (and this is the crux of the point). The point your trying to push already has an article devoted to soapboxing it : American (word). There the interests of fairness and honest have already been abandoned, but at least the worthwhile article isn't being disrupted. WilyD 12:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps the reason that article isn't being disrupted is because, unlike in this one, fairness and honesty have actually prevailed there, producing a balanced article? SamEV (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That article faces constant disruption, conflict, POV warring, whatever. Not as much strightforward vandalism as America, say, but it's harder to find. If you can read an article and it's very obvious to you what position the author has (which it is with American (word)) it's not neutral. By the end of the introduction it's obvious, and it goes downhill. WilyD 14:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Then one would (I would) expect you to do everything you can to make sure this article isn't that way. Instead you seem hellbent on using it for payback.

"If you can read an article and it's very obvious to you what position the author has (which it is with American (word)) it's not neutral."

Happens every time I read the lead of this one. SamEV (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading it, yes. The issue of naming is such a minor facet of the Americas it really shouldn't be mentioned at all in the lead. Geography, culture, history, economy all stack up - and yet...

Feel free to fix it, though. WilyD 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt I was free to fix it, do you recall? My fix went like this: "The Americas, also, America..." That was my fix. I sourced it. I can find more sources if asked. But you didn't like that fix very much. It was an 'extremist' fix in your view. SamEV (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WilyD, are you still of that opinion? SamEV (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In one paragraph on the Americas, it probably fails the undue weight clause of the neutral point of view policy to mention that the Americas are occasionally refered to as America, yes. The article as a whole suffers from a massive failure in this way, and it's primarily about terminology for the Americas. The bulk of the text should be history, geography, culture, politics, economics, demographics - I've tried to work on this in the past, but there's not too much discussion about the continent pair as a single unit. WilyD 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, WP:UNDUE hasn't been revoked![5]

BTW, I didn't say "occassionally".

But it's interesting you say it "probably" fails WP:UNDUE to add that "the Americas" are also known as "America". That expresses uncertainty. Wouldn't it be better if you knew for sure? SamEV (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm an enormous fan of being pedantic. Thusly Hume's wisdom always lurks in the back of my mind. I know that I can't know for sure. I can be clear, I suppose, to say "I cannot think up how to make a lead that discusses the naming issue without failing the no undue emphasis principle. In the case of Macedonia, one understands why the naming dispute might be in the lead (even there, I'm not sure it'd pass an FAC like that). In a case like this, where the dispute is confined to a few internet activists - forget it. Of course, there may be a "brilliant writing" way around this. I'm not a brilliant writer. WilyD 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pedantic", "Hume", "I know that I can't know for sure." Good stuff. I'm taking notes.

Meantime, don't worry about the writing. There are plenty of people at Wikipedia who can write.

But you see, it's not about writing a lead "that discusses the naming issue", but about providing the next most, and very common, name of "the Americas" in the first sentence — I too am concerned about WP:UNDUE, as the current lead 'probably' violates that part of NPOV by giving only one of these two very common names (thereby giving undue weight to it). SamEV (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think using "America" for the entire continent(s) is a viewpoint of a minority, you should source it. Otherwise, it is merely an opinion of one individual. Whoffmannm (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In discussing things, I just expect people to be honest. Sourcing doesn't affect whether or not something is actually true. I can't source that I'm wearing a Canadian Tuxedo - but it's true. WilyD 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then be honest and accept it is not a viewpoint of a minority. As I said, this is an article for the world, so you shouldn't just assume that the way things are in your neighborhood are the standard everywhere else. Researching won't harm, believe me. Keep in mind, for instance, that there are more English speakers (of course considering fluent speakers only) in Latin America (let alone continental Europe) than in Canada alone. The English language is not regulated by any official entity, and the sole fact of you being a Native speaker does not give you more right of "owning the language". Whoffmannm (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope no one is trying to make the argument that this article should reflect the notion of "America" held by native English speakers. This is not the Wikipedia of or for native English speakers, but the Wikipedia written in English, with a worldwide point of view. It doesn't even require that all sources be in English. It would be different if it were an article about the word "America" or "Americas"; but it's not: it's about the geographical entity. (It's analogous to how you can have an article about a demonym, and another about the people who bear the demonym). This being a world region, a worldwide view is required. Also, at the same time addressing WilyD's tuxedo problem, I should remind him that the standard is "verifiability, not truth". Unless they've revoked WP:V. SamEV (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All we're doing here is writing in English; this is something we've agreed to do. English is harder to write in because there's no authority on what words mean - people can come in here and dishonestly suggest that using America when you mean the Americas occurs often and is proper and there's no foolproof way to prove they're full of shit. Writing in English is not writing with an English language POV, but it does require we take the English language's POV on what the names of things are. Here our article is at London, on French Wikipedia it's at fr:Londres and these are both correct. Just a consequence of writing in a particular language. WilyD 12:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh do get off it. In what language is this Britannica article? And this Encarta article? Tell me, please. We're "writing in English", you say. Isn't that what I just wrote? What point are you trying to make? Are Britannica and Encarta being dishonest? Are they not reliable sources? Who's full of what here? And if by your own admission you can't disprove squat, including the claim that "America" is used often to mean 'the Americas', on what basis do you object to such an inoffensive edit as pairing "America" with "The Americas" in the first sentence? On what basis? I ask again. SamEV (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Britannica's offhand mention of an archaic usage isn't particularly surprising; Encarta's is, and I'm not able to do much more than speculate about such a bizarre occurance. As an honest editor, I have to make honest statements. The lead sets up the article to be entirely about this silliness (which is essentially is). I haven't tried to remove it. I cannot bring myself to suggest we should deceive readers in the way we do things, not deliberately when we can do better. Why should we? WilyD 13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth; not bizarreness, or what surprises you, or whatever. Whether it's found in reliable sources is what matters. No one's asking you to speculate about anything, nor is there any deception: The sentence would read "The Americas, or America[ref][ref]...[you want 10 refs here, WilyD? Just ask.]" Readers can click on the references and verify the use of "America" just like anything else. Where's this supposed "deception" of yours, then? SamEV (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We were always taught that it was called "the Americas" because there were two of them. The continents of North and South America. collectively know as the Americas. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In your country you were taught it was "the Americas", but it doesn't imply that in the whole world they have been making that mistake. Please do some researching and you will find out that when the term "America" was first coined, it was meant to represent the whole landmass. By the time the first conquerors arrived in the New World", they did not distinguish two continents, but gave the whole mass the name "America".

WilyD, please refrain from trying to impose your personal believes that "America" is an archaic way of refering to the entire landmass. Please be honest and do not come here and tell us that you yourself are a more reliable source than Britannica and Encarta encyclopedias. We are trying to build up a serious article here and by the ways you express yourself (using the sh*t word two times in this section alone), and insulting other users you are nothing but losing credibility. One should take into account that a certain level of education and respect is required to participate. Whoffmannm (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can interject a few points - 1) The Encarta reference cited above also says "America is a common designation for either or both North America and South America" (empahsis added). If you can find me someone who commonly uses "America" to mean North America by itself or to mean South America by itself, maybe Encarta would have some credibility on this matter. 2) "(W)hen the term "America" was first coined, it was meant to represent the whole landmass". I don't see why this argument gets repeatead so excessively, as if it were somehow decisive. Insisting that words primarily retain the meaning they had in 1507 makes no more sense than insisting we continue to use the same maps that appeared that year with "America" on it, before there was any proper understanding of said landmass. If we stick to 500-year-old meanings, it would be pretty hard to work on wikipedia. 3) Whoffmannm, if "a certain level of education and respect is required to participate", you are in danger of violating at least the respect part of that provision. I suggest you refrain from treating native English speakers as if we collectively failed third-grade geography and are simply too ignorant and proud to learn anything you think we should "know". CAVincent (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CAVincent: Respect has been granted thoroughly in all my entries. I have not been treating anybody is if they had failed anything. Please refrain from generalizing what has been said here and extrapolating your assumptions of what is meant to a larger group of people.Whoffmannm (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have not tried to impose my personal belief - I've merely made a statement that we all know to be true. Nor have I suggested I'm more reliable than anything.

It should come as no surprise that when you insist on repeated denigrating the value of the cultures and nationalities of Latin America and Canada, that Latin Americans or Canadians might get their ire up. Such might precipitate the use of colourful language. Shit is a serious word. One ought to be loath to use it idly. Beyond that, I'm comfortable that my education level is sufficient, and I'm sure there's a lesson about reaping what one sows. It's far more disrespectful to everyone for users to make statements and push positions they know to be false than to speak to them as if they're competant adults. WilyD 20:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does come as a surprise to me since I am used to dealing with highly educated and civilized individuals who respectfully express their points of view rather than insulting and using censurable words. If you consider your education level sufficient, you should once and for all revise all what has been written here, consult the verifiable sources, realize that the world is larger than four blocks around your house, and you will come to see that, although "The Americas" is a valid term, "America" is also largely used worldwide to refer to the same thing. It is not a false statement; I know it for I have researched it. Whoffmannm (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's please avoid personal attacks here, everyone. Whoffmannm, the very first part of your above comment had nothing to do with the article and was an attack solely at another user. Now, let's not confuse content with terminology here. The content of any article must take a worldview and not that of a specific country or group of language speakers. However, when it comes to the terminology used, how can we not refer to native speakers of a certain language? If someone is not a native speaker of English, how would he know what the most used terminology for something in the language is? No one has denied that both Americas and America have been used present and past to refer to the 2 continents of North and South America, but the question is what is the most common term used in the English language. If you look America up in most dictionaries, it does list both the United States and the lands of North and South America as the definition; however, in almost every single dictionary, it lists the United States as the first definition of the word which generally indicates the definition with the most weight in the language (this is not just usage in the United States either). Kman543210 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The first part of my comment above is no attack to another user. Be impartial und you will see who is attacking whom. There is nothing to hide, it is all written here. Scan for a while and find, for instance, who calls "disturber" to whom and who expresses himself with censurable words. Whoffmannm (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CAVincent, those encyclopedias are reliable, verifiable sources. Nor is there anything that would prevent us from stating what Encarta does concerning the applicability of the terms to either continent as well as to the entire landmass. That can be stated in one or two lines of text.

Kman, it isn't about what the most common term is, but the most common terms. There are two, and both should be noted prominently. The problem (at least before prof.rick's last edit) is that right off the bat in the lead readers are lead to believe that it is somehow deviant (in a bad way) to use "America" for the continent (and it is still one continent: the Panama Canal is artificial, and it's not even at sea level. "Continent" means 'continuous [land]') in the English language. They're giving undue weight to one term ("The Americas") over the other ("America"). More weight, I agree, should be given to "The Americas" by keeping the article at this title, but not just about all the weight, as the current version does. SamEV (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Encarta meets the standard of a reliable, verifiable source. I merely pointed out that one could legitimately use it as a reliable, verifiable souce to claim that "America" might mean everything in North America but nothing in South America or vice versa, something I've never heard anyone suggest. But if someone comes to this article insisting that using "America" to mean only the territory below Panama is a valid definition, well, in it goes I suppose. I do think that hurts its credibility, reliable source or not. CAVincent (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone makes the claim that "America" is often applied to North or South America alone, they should simply be asked to provide at least a second source.

I see you removed Prof.rick's edit; is it because you oppose it on its substance, or because he did it during discussion? Or both? (Despite the sources?) SamEV (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From above "In your country you were taught it was "the Americas", but it doesn't imply that in the whole world they have been making that mistake." Whoffmannm, you are right it doesn't and all I was saying is that at a particular time in a particular school in the UK that is what we were taught. Can you source the comment that the whole world has not been teaching that?

Prof.rick, is there really any need to start another three sections, on what is pretty much the same subject that is being discussed here. At the same time could you please leave out the all capitals and the anti-US bias stuff. By the way, America is currently a disambiguation page.

Picking the title and the amount of weight that is be given to "America(s)" should be governed in part by Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name and sources. Finding the "most easily recognized name" is not the easiest thing. "I can call the entire landmass "America" when speaking to ten people in, say, my building and they will all know exactly what I am talking about..." (Whoffmannm below) but at the same time a quick asking yesterday of 12 people at work indicated they all thought I was talking about the US. Also from below,

America can be used to refer to the whole continent(s) or, commonly yet technically not correctly, to the United States of America. That is being honest and accurate.Whoffmannm (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC) which seems to indicate that Whoffmannm also thinks the common usage of America is to refer to the US. Finding what might be the technically correct name may be easier, there is Pan American Health Organization but even they use the term "Americas". I found Free Trade Area of the Americas interesting, especially given the translations but that may be just because it came from the English first. Then we have the Organization of American States, who in their charter use America to refer to both continents and appear to use it that way throughout their site. Of course they also run the Summit of the Americas. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the OAS is about the only place that uses "American" to mean what's usually called "Pan-American" in English speech (compare Pan American Health Organization in CambridgeBayWeather's example, PanAm Games are the first example to my mind). That the OAS uses America/American to mean the Americas/Pan-American isn't surprising to my mind - they're definitely associated with American Imperialism so far as I can see.

Beyond that - English doesn't support "technically correct" or "technically incorrect" features. Unlike those languages with a central authority on what's correct or incorrect, English is only defined by usage. WilyD 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some news sources from the UK, Canada, and Australia to some of the common usage outside the U.S. that use Americas for both North and South America and America in reference to the U.S.: BBC News (UK): (World News America)[6] (news about the United States) BBC News Americas [7] (news about both North and South America) Even the BBC store has 2 separate websites: BBC America[8] (for U.S.) and BBC Canada[9]

CBC news (Canada): “America votes” [10] “Race in America” [11](describing U.S. elections, uses the word ‘’America’’ in reference to the U.S.). “The Americas” [12] (referring to both the continents)

ABC News (Australia): “in the Americas”[13] [14] [15] “America” (referring to the U.S.)[16] [17] [18] [19] Kman543210 (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are three important, reliable sources,Kman. But here's a far more wide-ranging sample of contemporary, English-language use of "America" in reference to both continents, from sources of all levels of fame:

• The United States' own Library of Congress uses "America" for the hemisphere in this work from 2005.[20], [21]
• This BBC story has "Americas" in its title, but speaks of the possible discovery of "America" by the Chinese.[22] (Indeed: I don't claim that any of the sources exclusively refers to the Western Hemisphere as "America"; but it is not necessary that they do.)
• "Eco-Schools in America" (Bahamas, Brazil, and Chile are the countries specifically mentioned)[23]
• The Vatican Museum website uses "America" for the Western Hemisphere.[24]. Papal visit to "America"; homily in Mexico][25]
• "Historically, the southern distribution of coyotes prior to European settlement in America was described as reaching only as far south as central Mexico and that introduction of livestock favoured migration of coyotes to southern Mexico and Central America."[26]
• This FOX News headline reads *"Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Beat Columbus to America"[27] (The chicken bones are from Chile, btw)
• "...Peru, now called the best Gastronomic Country in America."[28]
• The New York Times: *"NEW genetic research has produced more evidence that the first people to settle America probably arrived from Asia as early as 29,000 years ago." ""We believe in our data," he said. "I feel that they strongly push for an early arrival of people in the Americas.""[29]
• Google Books: "Atlantis in America" by Lewis Spence and Paul Tice (2002) "Lewis Spence presents evidence that Atlantis was located somewhere in the western hemisphere, in and around Central America."[30]
• University of Texas: [31] "Chicken - George F Carter considers the evidence in "Pre-Columbian Chickens in America" (in Man Across the Sea, edited by Riley et al 1971. pp. 178-218), concluding that chickens in America were more likely present in the New world before Columbus, and that they were more likely to have been introductions of Asiatic fowl (but by way of Polynesia, and to South America)."

Histories of the Western Hemisphere make plentiful use of the term "America" in reference to said area, in such expressions as: 'humans walked across Beringia to America', 'the Mayas created one of the most advanced civilizations in America', 'Columbus discovered America', 'did Phoenicians discover America?', 'the Portuguese colonies in America'. Some more examples: "Civilizations in America"[32]; "Chronology of the PORTUGUESE POSSESSIONS in AMERICA (1500-1700)"[33]; [34] "Iberians in America" "Between 1503 and 1660 more than seven million pounds of silver reached Seville from America..."; [35] "The tradition of a White God in ancient America was preserved through generations of Indians from Chile to Alaska..."; [36] "[Domingo Martínez de Irala] As the first governor in America elected by a free vote of the colonists, he founded in Asunción the first cabildo in America."; [37] "Bartolomé De Las Casas began his career in America as a soldier and encomendero."; [38] "Portugal in America, to 1600". And there's a whole lot of that literature, new works coming out every year. "America" = Western Hemisphere is very much in current use. SamEV (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And the rest of us?

I object to the title of "The Americas", which, in effect reserves the term "America" for USA. Whether we live in Toledo, Canada, Mexico, or Chili, we are ALL Americans, and EACH of us is entitled to be called an American.

We would like to restore the dignity of the word, "American", and undo the harm caused by its use by previous "United Stations", and their incessant war-mongering and attempts to dominate the world! We do NOT want to be associated with your agenda!!!

GIVE US BACK the word, "American", and call yourselves "United Stations", to make clear your DIFFERENCES from the rest of the Western Hemisphere!

The Iraq war has been a hoax, which has led your country into virtual bankruptcy (let alone the lives of 4,000 United Stations and 100,000 Iraqis). It is a unilateral, undeclared war, all in pursuit of OIL, but in the name of DEMOCRACY. As long as you continue to finance this so-called war (a war is usually declared, and the premises defined), which is really an occupation and invasion, and you are fighting on borrowed money...YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE!!!

DOES OIL MATTER MORE THAN HUMAN LIVES???

The rest of America, (the other 76%) would prefer to distance ourselves from you. PLEASE, DON'T USE THE NAME OF OUR HEMISPHERE TO SUGGEST THAT WE AGREE WITH YOU!

Why are you hated by the world? Why did 9/11 ever occur? You want to be loved by the world, but to totally control it!!!

These are the first days of the Decline of the Empire of The United States of America. Your economy has been based on credit, but you have reached your credit limit! What else is there, but bankruptcy?

From a caring Canadian friend, who hopes against odds to steer you onto a realistic and humane path, in which you are not self-perceived gods, but equals, caring more about human lives than oil!

PS: Does your dignity suffer when referred to as "equals"? Get real, and consider it a far-reaching compiment!!! Unfortunately, the rest of the world perceives you as antagonists, and NOT as friends!

Anyone who agrees completely or in part with the views I have expressed, PLEASE make you views known to Wikipedia, by adding a comment! If, by concensus, we win, the Article Name will be changed, and so will countless readers. Prof.rick (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't work this way. Even if you round up a stack of sock puppets to support a fringe POV, we still do the honest and correct thing. WilyD 11:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this screed is instructive. It seems to me that complaints about the English usage of "America" and "American" are at least in part motivated by anti-Americanism and even legitimate complaints about the United States. (I know Wily sees other motivations.) Prof.rick seems to think his otherwise non-sequitur attack on US foreign policy is grounds for changing the name of a wikipedia article. Incidentally, plenty of us view the invasion of Iraq with regret, wish we had better relations with other nations, etc. Beyond a lunatic fringe, however, none of us are going to cease calling ourselves Americans for these or any other reasons. Though I do find the "United Stations" suggestion inadvertently amusing. CAVincent (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CAVincent, going on from that I would think that it would be unlikely that anybody outside of the US is going to call themselves American. To do so would probably give the impression that we were from the US. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In real life? Probably a few - after all, censuses report nonzero numbers of Jedis and Martians. Anti-Americanism? Possibly, but it's a very strange thing to do. I can't make all the details work mentally. WilyD 12:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

America or Americas?

There is one America...the western hemisphere. This title is misleading, and reveals a pro-USA bias. If the title is not changed to "America", I will surely think less of Wikipedia, for a slanted USA bias. GET REAL! You are 24% of America!!! Prof.rick (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• America is 100% of America. If being honest and accurate makes dishonest fringe point of view pushers think less of us - so much the better. WilyD 11:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

America can be used to refer to the whole continent(s) or, commonly yet technically not correctly, to the United States of America. That is being honest and accurate.Whoffmannm (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's certainly no evidence of technical incorrectness. For English, such a concept isn't necessarily even meaningful (since there is no authority which decides how English works.). I can refer to the pair of continents as America, or chocolate fudge sundae land, for that matter. Suggesting I can refer to it by either of those names and expect English speakers to know what I'm talking about is dishonest. WilyD 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can call the entire landmass "America" when speaking to ten people in, say, my building and they will all know exactly what I am talking about, and, guess what, they are all English speakers. You are free to come see for yourself if you do not believe it. I can go to the United States and say "America" to refer to the whole landmass. I would expect people to think I am talking about USA only. It would not be a surprise, since that is the main usage for said word in that particular region of the globe. See? The word has different meanings; both should be considered when writing an encyclopedia. Whoffmannm (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big misunderstanding with the name of America, this article says Americas as contient, it's a horrible mistake, because all languages call it as America, but, don't forget the complete name of "United States of America", the U.S citizens call themselves as Americans because they are "Americans" in their United States, and the United Nations called the name of the country as "United States" as must to remember, with its complete name as United States of America, because theses states are in America continent. But, there are people who think that of America means the name of the country, that's why fool people call their country as "America".

But don't forget the real name of your country, just remember for example this template {{USA}} "United States".--Heraldicos (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

BLOCK ON TITLE

WHY has Wikipedia blocked all editors from changing the title, from the obviously biased "Americas" to the objective "America"? C'mon, Wikipiedia editors, from all over the globe...SPEAK UP! Are you going to allow 24% of America (the war-monger, USA) to control OUR encyclopedia? Prof.rick (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The naming convention is that articles are placed at their most common English language name, or the name English speakers would be mostly likely to recognise them at. Apart from a few Latin American internet activists who want to turn control of our entire hemisphere over to the States, nobody speaks like this. Monroe doctrine or not, some of us rather like our own countries (and in extreme cases differentiating ourselves from Americans is an important part of our national identity. Cheers, WilyD 11:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, WilyD do not keep on pushing your very own personal ideas that only "a few Latin American internet activists" want to turn control to the United States. Neither the user who opened this section nor I are Latin Americans, so there you have a small proof that not only "a few Latin Americans" think that way. Please go read a lot before coming here and writing nonsense. Using “America” to denote the entire landmass is no sign at all of supporting any imperialism. The term “America”, you like it or not, was originally used to denote the whole landmass in general, and the Caribbean Islands and some inner explored territories mostly (but not only) in Central and South America. The usage of “America” to denote exclusively the United States of America can not have begun earlier than late in the 18th century; that is, a couple of centuries after the word was coined in the first place. Hence, using “America” for the whole landmass is a sign of using the words in the sense they were originally meant to be used. Not acknowleding that fact and thinking it has to do with some sort of imperialism is a sign of lack of history awareness and poor culture. A Latin American (or a Chinese or whoever) could say “The Americas” or “America” to refer to the same thing when speaking English. It will depend on whom he is talking with to determine how well he is understood. Of course there are places on Earth where “America” will first and (probably only) be related to the USA, but that doesn’t mean that that is the only possibility. To write an encyclopaedia for the world, the point of view of the entire globe has to be taken into account, and not try to impose personal conceptions.Whoffmannm (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Err, of course if we were planning to send Wikipedia back in time to when America regularly was used to refer to the Americas, it might make sense to use 16th and 17th century terminology. As far as I know, there's no reason to find this feasible at this date, and so we write in 21st century English, for English speakers who live in the 21st century. The meaning of words a few hundred years ago isn't relevent for the most part (here in the origin of the name, clearly it is. In instructive speech, clearly it is not).

Beyond this, yes, the few editors who've come to push this POV have been Latin Americans, and as far as I can tell, yes, they support the America as the ruler of the Americas mentality. I would be open to hearing another reason for their actions, but none has been suggested that's plausible. So here we are - stuck with an article that's perhaps half about the name of the Americas. Could you image the article on Queen Elizabeth being half on her name? Absurd! But with few regular editors here, we're stuck dealing with a few dishonest fringe pushers. Life sometimes sucks in this way.

The ground truth is "I come from America", spoken in English, will be taken to be synonymous with "I come from the United States" by J. Random Anglophone. Everyone who's pushed this "The Americas are secretly properly named America" POV would realise when I say "I'm not an American" I might well be Jamaican or Colombian or Mexican or Canadian. They'd recognise that if they met someone and she said "I'm from America" they're from the United States. They just, apparently, misrepresent this. The reason I've suggested for why is the only one that seems to fit the evidence. WilyD 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Prof.rick, I object to your characterization of the U.S.

But concerning the real topic at hand, and specifically in regards to your call on other editors who want to see a more honest article, I think we should simply follow this process through; from discussion here and then through the succeeding dispute resolution mechanisms. SamEV (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, discussion here is the way to go! I am a Canadian, but I am also an American, as much as you! But why does the world have such a dim view of the US? Why was there a 9/11? Why does the US have a military presence in 180 countries, and been at war since 1941? We does the US at once wish to be loved by the world, but to control it?

And why doesn't the US bring an end to its own financial crisis by bringing an end to needless wars (so often fought for one reason: OIL). You have reached your credit limit! It is time to stop borrowing money in order to kill other human beings in distant countries, and time to start investing in your own country. It has such great potential, but it has been sadly misdirected.

If I sound disenchanted with the US, its because I am! (Along with most of the world.) The ONE possible redemption is the election of Obama as President. This is a milestone which makes the whole world very happy! Prof.rick (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comments do not show a neutral point of view and do not relate to the article. Remember that talk pages are for improving the article and not a forum or a place to "soapbox". Kman543210 (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kman,

I have reverted your last edit due to the inappopriate nature of the edit summary, and to your glaringly obvious failure to read the entire lead, and check out the citations. Once you do so, you will recognize my edit reflects world views, facts, and not just those of USA. It is unbiased. But through a USA bias you have failed to maintain a neutral point of view.

I was kind enough to place "Americas" before "America" in my edit. Would you prefer the honesty of reversing the order? Unfortunately, most of the world has little respect for USA. PLEASE, don't aggravate the other 76% of America by claiming that YOU or the US is America!!!

Wikipedia gives us room for discussion. Let's use it intelligently and constructively. Prof.rick (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing me with another editor. I have not edited this article since 4 November, 2008. That particular edit was a revert of an edit that changed every instance of Americas to America in the entire article, but I have not edited the article since then. Kman543210 (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was CAVincent's edit that rick's referring to. I'm not sure why the use of the understatement "contentious" was relevent, though. WilyD 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Africa a country or a continet? i mean if people from the USA call the US America because you guys have it on the name, would that make the south africans the only africans? would that make south africa Africa only? and should the rest be call Africas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.182.56.52 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

India

(believing, to the end, that he had discovered and colonized part of India)

I think this is more than a little misleading -- the terms The Indies and India meant something quite different in Columbus' time (the Dutch East India Company, for example, operated as far east as modern-day Indonesia), so while he thought he was in what he called India, he probably did not think that he was in what we call India.

To use India in this article is (to my mind) anachronistic. The only suitable modern equivalent would have to be Asia. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming?

Hello I saw something on a TV program called QI the other night which stated that America was in fact not actually named after amerigo Vespucci or whatever his name was but by some one else, the researchers on this show basically find and put to rest rumours, old wives tales and commonly accepted knowledge that is false, they would not be wrong about this they have studied for years on this sort of stuff, has anyone else heard about this, but also does anybody else know who it was named after, it was mentioned on the show but I forgot the name, sorry.. 86.134.253.171 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Richard Amerike who is actually included in the naming section. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm pretty sure that was the guy they mentioned on the show because they said he was from the UK somewhere.86.134.253.171 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Most populous city in the Americas

Mexico City is ranked as the most populous city in the Americas in this article even though its own page lists its population as 8,836,045, which is fewer than São Paulo's at 11,150,249. Is this an error or am I missing something? --DeanoNightRider (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The metropolitan area of Greater Mexico City is much higher than its population within the Distrito Federal., it's almost 20 million.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's figures make São Paulo not only the largest city in the Americas, but also make the São Paulo metro area the largest metropolitan area in the Americas, at 22,105,060.--DeanoNightRider (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: List of metropolitan areas by population puts the Mexico City Metro higher than SP's.--DeanoNightRider (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

More naming dispute

Hi guys. Seems this page is seized by Americans (that is by U.S. people impersonating as NPOViewers, or worse yet, as owners of the global truth). I guess Jimbo Wales should take a look at this talk page. For the rest of us, Americans, lets just ignore this page and move on with our lives.--201.116.149.85 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Usually it's customary to accuse this guy of owning the naming of this article, and he's not an American. May I suggest a different ad hominem argument? WilyD 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)