Jump to content

Talk:Americas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by American(Can) (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 7 June 2009 (→Backwards Intro: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Western Hemisphere

The Americas and the Western Hemisphere are two completely different things and the multiple references to the Americas as being the same as the Western Hemisphere need to be removed. The Western Hemisphere is everything west of the Greenwhich mean time which is half the world whilst the Americas make up only 8.3% so there is a huge difference. Also the New world isn't the same thing as it includes the likes of Australia and New Zealand. The Americas is the Only term that means what it means and the only other ways to describe it are by listing the Plates, regions or continents that make up the Islands of the Americas. I live about 30 miles away from the western Hemisphere yet thousands from the closest point in the Americas.(Morcus (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I concur with that - having looked at the respective Western Hemisphere and New World articles their usage here was incorrect. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

The opening sentence read:

The Americas are the lands of the Western hemisphere or New World, consisting of the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions.

There were several problems with this:

  • Western hemisphere or New World -- erroneously suggests the two terms are synonymous.
  • The main clause was The Americas are the lands of the Western hemisphere or New World, which looks like the Americas is a third synonym for the same thing.
  • , consisting of looks like subordinate information, when in fact it is the most important part of the description.

Prof Wrong (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Happy with your new opening as it adresses my noted problems.(Morcus (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have rechanged the second usage as 'the lands and regions of the western hemisphere' still suggests that they are synonyms. The Americas does not (And never has or will) refer to the land and regions of the Western hemisphere. Ive changed it to 'North and South America and the Caribean which as far as I know covers the whole of the Americas, if it doesn't I sugest any divisions left out be added. That or we change it to the Americas refers to the lands described in this article or something simillar. Please do not change it back to some thing untrue.(Morcus (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The phrase:

The Americas (...) consisting of the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions."

For compatibility with others Wikipedia pages, I think that we must call the insular region as Caribbean and also include the Central America (region between Panama channel and south of Mexico). Is the north of Mexico considered part of the North America? Or only mainland USA, Canada and Alasca? The critherium is political or based in continental plates theory? Remember that Novo Mexico and Texas where of spanish colonization and Lousiana were of French colonization, so colonization by anglo-saxons should not be a criterion to define "North America"... Osame (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hav clicked in North America and found: The term North America may mean different things to different people in the world according to the context. Usage other than that of the entire continent includes: In English, North America is often used to refer to the United States and Canada exclusively.[22] Alternatively, usage may include Mexico[23] (as with North American Free Trade Agreement) and other entities.[24] In Latin America, Spain, Portugal, and some other parts of Europe, North America usually designates a subcontinent (subcontinente in Spanish) of the Americas containing Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and often Greenland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Bermuda.[25]

But you are right: North America (continent) seems to be any land above Panama channel and Northern America refers to the political-cultural anglo-french colonies. Osame (talk)

  • Err, yeah, sometimes there's a bit of ambiguity in what's meant by North America, but it's not that much, and diving into that sort of subtle point is not really appropriate for the lede. Almost all readers will have access to the pair of maps that eliminate most (all?) confusion, and the article'll go into more detail later. WilyD 19:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Russian Usage Didn't understand quite well... There some "traditional" and "untraditional" continents are mentionned... I cannot be sure for the 19th century, as I'm not an expert in the history and evolution of georgaphical terminology... But the 20th century Russian terminology gives two distinct terms: continents (landmasses) and parts of world. The former concerns only natural formations, geology (masses of Earth's crust), distinction of land from oceans. The latter brings much of the traditional, historical and cultural content. I.e. the continents are: Eurasia, Africa, Australia, Antarctida, South America, North America. The parts of world are: Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, America (!), Antarctida and sometimes Oceania. These are two different terms which are still in use. If the word in question, "Americas", means the part of world, this term exists in Russian. If the phrase "There is no term equivalent to "Americas" in Russian" concerns your discussion on the correct usage "America" - "Americas", yes, such problem doesn't exist in Russian, as the name of the part of world and the informal name for the USA are absolutely the same. I can add a bit about word usage: "American" as "belonging to the USA" is really a coomon use, "he (she) is an American" means that "he (she) is from the USA". But "American animals" or "geographical zones of America" will more likely refer to the part of world (the two continents). The meaning "America = USA" is more for general topics, "America = continent" is more scientific and bookish. There are also words like "штатовский", "Штаты" (States) meaning USA only, but they are more slang than written forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.192.215 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) There is also a bit different division in political geography, there Central America is added to North America and South America. 85.140.192.215 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Elena from Russia[reply]

Lack of NPOV

My comment: if you go to any geography classroom outside the USA, they will tell you America starts in alaska and ends in Chile, and they would not know what "the americas" is, everyone knows the continent as 'America'. If you go deeper you will find that outside of USA classrooms they teach that there are the North, Central, and South America regions, in which there is no controversy: Mexico is part of North America. Having said that... is this USA wiki or English wiki? depending on that this point of view could be worthless (if the answer is USA wiki), tho I see its en.wiki.org... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.118.196 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's English Wikipedia, which means it's written in the English language, without preference for one dialect or another. The problem is that many of us took geography outside of the United States (for instance, I'm not an American) and so we know your claim about the meaning of America to be false. WilyD 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, i grew up in Hong Kong. i don't think what the dude said was false(just check a dictionary or a history book)...where i grew up and where i live now (New Zealand) "America" means everything from the top of Canada to Cape Horn. most of New Zealand's dictionaries are British publications....so it seems that the use of "America" referring to the supercontinent is a little more widespread than using it to refer to the US. there's a country to the north of New Zealand called the Federated States of Micronesia, but noone just says "Micronesia"...they say FSM or the Federated States because Micronesia is a completely different thing...isn't that essentially the same scenario??? and if Wikipedia is so "without preference" wouldn't you concede to the more universally-accepted terminology? ScottyMull (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha--well said person above. I live in Australia; my parents went to school in England. Noone I know uses "the Americas"--the landmass is called "AMERICA" in most parts of the Anglosphere. Isn't Cuzco in Peru known as "el corazon de America"?
Also, I found it weird that people were confused about what constitutes what in America. I originally did write up a summary here, but if you go to the "Subdivisions of America" boxes under the Terminology heading, the first two have it spot-on. The third box must be like some Martian version of the landmass' breakup (if anyone lobbies for that box's deletion, I shall support).
The fourth box is completely wrong. ANGLO-AMERICA is everywhere where the MAIN language is that of Anglican origin (i.e. from Angles--modern England--i.e. English). This includes Belize and Guyana as well as a multitude of nations in the Caribbean. LATIN AMERICA is everywhere where the MAIN language spoken is derived from Latin (i.e. Spanish, French, Portuguese--places conquered by Rome). History and colonialism doesn't come into it when you're talking Latin America or Anglo-America--it's to do with the language break-up AT PRESENT. I'm not yelling. The capitals were just for emphasis.
Night w (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into the argumentative side of this; I'd just like to add a quotation from a source for reference. This is a portion of the entry America in Webster's New Geographical Dictionary (1984):

In current use: either continent of the Western Hemisphere (North America or South America); often, specifically, the United States of America (q.v.); also, although in this application the plural form the Americas is the usual one, all the lands of the Western Hemisphere including North America, South America, and the West Indies.

"What people say where I live" and "what sounds logical to me" are fruitless lines of discussion regarding questions like this. Only reliable sources should determine what goes in the article and how it is worded. Deor (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I see Webster's is a US publication. Interesting... As for the rest of the Anglosphere:

American adj. of or relating to the continents of America. / n. (1) a native or inhabitant of the continents of America. (2) a native or citizen of the United States. The Australian National Dictionary: Fourth Edition (2004) Canberra. ISBN 0-19-551771-7.
American adj. relating to the United States or to the continents of America. / n. a person from the United States or any of the countries of North, South, or Central America. Oxford Dictionary of English: Revised Edition (2005) London. ISBN: 978-0-19-861057-1.
American adj. (1) belonging or relating to the United States of America. (2) belonging or relating to the American continent, its inhabitants, or their languages. / n. a citizen or inhabitant of, or person born in, the United States of America, or the American continent. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2003) Edinburgh. ISBN 8-18-606226-2
American adj. of or relating to the continent America. New Zealand Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1986) Wellington. ISBN: 0-19-558137-7.

The "American continent"? But wait, I thought Australia was the only country that occupied a whole continent. Strange... It should be noted that none of these sources used the term "Americas". So much for that "without preference for one dialect or another"... Please excuse the sarcasm, I'm just annoyed that the attempt to quell the dispute behind the terminology section got reversed back to the badly-written previous edition. A couple of US Encyclopedia definitions of America:

America (for Amerigo Vespucci), the lands of the Western Hemisphere—North America, Central America, and South America. The Columbia Encyclopedia: Sixth Edition (2008).
America, second-largest isolated landmass on Earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere. America is a common designation for either or both North America and South America, for the western hemisphere as a whole, and for the United States of America. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (2000).

If anyone else here speaks this strange transglobal "dialect" that I do, feel free to quote from your country's dictionary Night w (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of "transglobal" usage of plural Americas, nevertheless. The British Museum, the BBC, The Economist, British academia, the Australian government, the New Zealand government, and this organization based in Germany, among many other non-U.S. organizations, all have apparently concluded that they can refer to "the Americas" without their audiences' scratching their heads and saying "What the devil are they talking about?" The lead of this article already explains that singular America is also used to refer to the same totality, so I must confess I'm not seeing the problem here. Deor (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that by denoting America as an "alternative" usage and sticking it on the end of the intro--while the Americas is both the title of the article and used in the opening definition--implies that the singular is of less consequence to the definition, even tho it's the more traditional form and is clearly used just as prominently as the plural. We both have multiple reliable sources to backup usage of the various forms, so neither form should take precedence when addressing a global audience in a neutral context. Furthermore, since both forms seem to be widely accepted, terminology should be bounded within the Terminology section of the article--it doesn't need to be addressed in the introduction. The rewrite addresses these issues from that kind of perspective--it doesn't say or imply that either usage is more or less "correct" than the other, but it does give reasons for why either is perhaps preferred, something that the previous version failed to address sufficiently. I've changed it back to my edit in the hopes that you'll agree with this stance after taking these things into consideration and reading the changes. If you still don't agree with certain parts, then change back those parts, but I'd appreciate it if you proposed your own alternative wordings because two pages of dialogue on the neutrality of the previous version means that something should be changed. Night w (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, our combined sources should be added as citations within the text, but I haven't done that just yet b/c I'm waiting to see what you do...don't want to waste effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Night w (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already had my recommended allowance of wikidrama for the week, so I'm stepping out of this for now. You might find Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs interesting reading, though. Deor (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that we all know it to be false. "The Americas" is the usual terminology, everywhere, in English, with a few archaic or apparently ultranationalist uses elsewhere. The article, as it exists, is already enormously biased towards this fringe point of view you're pushing. Moving towards a neutral point of view will be moving towards less discussion of the naming, as it probably deserves only a footnote per WP:UNDUE. WilyD 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for heaven's sake, i was taught at school that America is a continent. numerous other people have said the same. you're words don't seem to be justified. if it's so "archaic" why are they still teaching it that way in places all around the world????? Dude i think youre gonna have to accept that there are other accepted forms of the word that are widely used aryund the world. sources have been provided. ScottyMull (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deor--touche ;) WilyD! Are you kidding me? While your patriotism is inspiring your opinions do not automatically transform into facts. Below you claim to have mastered the art of quoting from dictionaries--I don't doubt that you can. But did you miss my exerpts from multiple dictionaries? Do they mean nothing simply because they contradict your rigid opinions? Tell me, please, if these scholars from Oxford and Cambridge are wrong and you, an sit-at-home Wikipedian are right in the rightest sense? Also, tell us of the conversations you've had on this topic with the 300 million-odd English-speakers "everywhere"... Don't forget to mention the ten or twenty who you've already had this debate with in this forum. Night w (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, this is kind of funny. I can't reconcile the POV you've been pushing here with anything other than strong pro-Americanism: Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, a mere matter of marching - kind of thinking. It is, no doubt, my nationalism that keeps me going as you come here again and again to suggest that Latin America & Canada ought to be thought of as mere colonies of the United States. But facts are what they are. Yes, we can find a few cites for America occasionally be used to mean The Americas - and we end up harping on that point incessently because it's of interest to you. The name is a very small facet, and one of practically no discussion anywhere but the talk pages of Wikipedia. A neutral article on the Americas would only make an offhand mention of the usage - anything else is a colassal failure of the undue emphasis clause, and shuttle readers off to a sub article that POV warriors can control (for instance, American (word) reeks of that bias - it's very clear the writers feel that the Americas should be replaced with America in everyday use.) WilyD 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WilyD, your stating that naming the whole landmass "America" to imply that all the countries are colonies of the USA has extensively been refuted in previous discussions. In fact, many Canadians and Latin Americans are strongly against the usage of "The Americas" and correctly consider themselves to be Americans, meaning they belong to the continent and not to the United States. If the naming were a very small facet as you state, there would not be all these lenghty discussions about it. Whoffmannm (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated "the continents of" in the opening sentence since the definition of what a continent is is ambiguous. Some state that America consists of two continents, whereas other, like the Olympic Committee, consider the entire landmass of America to be one single continent. Aucklanddude (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also simple not true. Cinq continente, seven continents. I can cite a dictionary that includes the existence of seven continents as part of the definition of the word. WilyD 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself admit there is ambiguity regarding the amount of continents, so I am turning the opening line back to how it was.Aucklanddude (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we should let the IOC tell us how to write a geography article, any more than we should consult GNIS for an article on an athlete. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you give a rational explanation why North and South America should be considered as 2 continents and not as one.**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.252.12 (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are five "continente"s and seven "continent"s, the inescapeable conclusion is that "continente" and "continent" are not perfect synonyms. While it's not unheard of for people to argue that Europe and Asia are secretly on the same continent, there's no ambiguity about whether North America and South America are the same continent, they're not. Even if they're the same continente. WilyD 10:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an invalid argument since you are expressing your own personal opinion about what a continent is. While some people state that there are 7 continents, other state there are five or six, all within the English-speaking world. (see http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/qt/qzcontinents.htm) Spanish "continente" has nothing to do here.85.179.105.77 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a lie, because I'm expressing a dictionary definition of what a continent is. Dropping continent here isn't really a big deal, I think, although it's being done for POV pushing reasons, there's no real need to specify here that North America and South America are continents. Trying to push the "It's wrong to call America America" POV is way too far to seriously entertain, though. WilyD 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is right, there's no real need to specify here that North America and South America are continents. That's why I am suppresing the continent term from the opening sentence. No need to create controversy from the very first sentence on. 85.179.105.77 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

We need a resolution regarding the neutrality of the POV represented in the article. Changes have been proposed, but not met with general consensus. Please discuss the merits and demerits of both the current and the proposed versions here. 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that User:Prof.rick has been called into the dispute by User:Night w—"in the hopes of resolving editorial disputes," he says (below, under "Another viewpoint"), though he seems to have begun by reinstating disputed edits, as well as making dodgy ones of his own, rather than making any effort to resolve anything. The established version of the article was arrived at after a good deal of discussion, which can be seen in this page's archives, any I think it would be a good idea if everyone would adopt a "discuss first, edit only after consensus is achieved" policy. If the parties are unable to agree through discussion, a member of the Mediation Cabal or some other truly uninvolved person can be called in to help with resolution. Deor (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* There was a bit of canvassing going on by Night W, in which he contacted six editors who broadly supported his position and sought their asistance - but I'm willing to accept this was because they weren't aware of the guidlines on this, rather than anything more sinister.
* I'd second the suggestion that a "discuss first" policy would be the best way to proceed here. Making radical changes to the article without a consensus will likely cause more trouble than its worth.
* I like to consider myself in the middle ground here. I'm not in favour of either of the two views that, looking through the archives, have been variously proposed (1. that America should always refer to the United States and that America should be a redirect to United States or 2. that this article on the Americas should be moved to America. I'm strongly in favour of retaining America as a disambiguation page.
* I have to be honest I am still not convinced that in English the term America is as commonly used as Americas. It's true that America is used almost exclusively in Spanish, which is why the Spanish article is located there. While this article ceirtainly needs to have both views mentioned, to include some of the recent edits would be giving the one view WP:UNDUE weight.
* I remain open-minded about this, and I could be convinced by the strength of the argument - although it has to be said much of this has been gone over before - see the archives. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I have come here from WP:3O and having read through this discussion I have decided that third opinion isn't really appropriate since there are far more than two editors involved. However I'll state my view (as an Englishman, since this does seem to be a regional/national thing): America is a continent, or possibly two if you break it into North and South America. "America" is often used to mean the US, but this is an informal usage. It is not uncommon with regional or country names: consider the differences between England/Britain/United Kingdom/British Isles which it seems even many Britons don't get. More directly comparable is "Europe". I doubt many would argue that Europe is a continent but it is frequently used as a shorthand for the European Union, particularly in the field of international politics or economics. The distinction is much clearer in most peoples minds, but the EU is much younger institution - it hasn't "always" been there like the USA has. It is easy to imagine a similar situation in a century or two where people are confused between those two entities. "The Americas" may be unambiguous but has an archaic feel to it, I don't think we should use it simply as a compromise term in this instance. I note that the CIA World Factbook refers to North, Middle and South America - no s. That publication follows the US government line as a matter of policy on issues such as this. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • So basically you are now saying that you are from Canadas? Or should we simply name every single place in plural. There is North France and South France, too; let's from now on say that Paris is the capital of "The Frances".
See, "America" was the name given to the whole landmass. The USA, being one of the first countries to declare its independence, took the designation of the whole landmass for itself. It doesn't mean however that the continent ceased to be called "America", it just happens that now it can be used to refer to two different things; no need to turn unofficial terms as "the Americas" as the better option in a serious encyclopedia. By the way, and out of curiousity, are you from Ontarios? or from Manitobas?.137.226.252.12 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your French example doesn't really seem to tally with the discussion. Nobody ever uses the term "The Frances", which I assume you have just made up to illustrate your point. By contrast the term Americas is widespread and in common usage. For instance I'm currently reading a recent biography of Horatio Nelson by a British author which calls one of its chapters "Nelson, the Americas and a wife" describing the time he spent in the Carribean during the American War of Independence.
You seem to be slightly mistaken about the naming issue wikipedia policy WP:COMMON NAME dictates that the most common name should be used rather than any "official" one. I'd agree that America was once the most common name to describe the landmass (in Nelson's age, someone from Novia Scotia or Newfoundland were commonly referred to as Americans) but since the foundation of the US in 1776-83, the common name for the landmass has shifted to The Americas while America has come to almost (but not totally) exclusively mean the United States. The issue here is also not wether this article should be moved to America, but rather if enough space in the intro is given to the alternative name. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Canadas both ceased to exist as governments well before I was born, but yes, I'm from the Canadas - that term (unlike the Carolinas or the Dakotas) isn't used much anymore. But I'm from the Canadas, while my grandfather, who's from St. John, is from Canada, but not from the Canadas. WilyD 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use America to define the landmass (whether or not I think that landmass is one continent or two). If you go back thru the archives you'll see many others (from English-speaking regions) do the same. If you look about 5 paragraphs down under "Lack of NPOV" you'll see I've quoted from four separate national dictionaries from four different countries, and from two different encyclopaedias. Having said that, I can't understand how common usage of the singular America to define a landmass is doubted. By stating "The Americas may alternatively be referred to as America" implies that it's some lesser-used terminology. Change the opening sentence to "America or the Americas" ---there needs to be a compromise, because the current version of the article may have been established "arrived at after a good deal of discussion" but certainly not from consensus. The fact that there is two archives full of people refuting terminology, with no resolution, means that there's something wrong with the current version. If we've arrived at an age where Wikipedia users can say dictionaries and encyclopaedias are wrong in their definitions--the very thing they're called upon for--then the website's policies need rethinking. Night w (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a comprimise. An enormous comprimise. The article is already rediculously tilted towards the idea that "America" is some common synonym for the Americas, when in fact most Anglophones will go their entire lives without hearing that esoteric usage even once. The substitution of "American" for "Pan-American" is a little more common, though still born out of the same American Imperialism as the other substitution. A good, neutral article on the Americas wouldn't devote more than one sentence to the naming issue, and would actually discuss things that're important - the geography, the history, the culture, the politics, the economy, yadda yadda yadda. WilyD 13:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your poor writing tells us of your inappropriateness for writing serious articles. The English language has no such word as "rediculously" or "comprimise". Second, an article on America devoting less than two sentences to the naming issue would not be a neutral nor a good article, but a quite mediocre one, as the origin of terms do need to be described in a serious article. Third, refrain yourself from offending Anglophones assuming that all through their lives they will never question the origin of words so common as America. Fourth, the terms "American" and "Pan-American" do not refer to the same, since the pan- prefix (which has greek roots) stresses the bonding between the referred members within a group. Thus, European and Pan-European are not strictly the same, for instance.137.226.252.12 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • When your only arguments are ad hominems, you sort of have to go with them. You shouldn't tell of our friend, but pity him for advocating an unsupportable position. Being an anglophone, I have no formal training in spelling, which puts me at a disadvantage that way no doubt. It'd be almost impossible to find an article that doesn't fail to agonise (this is probably hyper-corrected Canadian spelling, not misspelling. We can argue it out if you like) over naming. But the article should be about the Americas, not about a nomenclature quibble advocated by a few American Imperialists (or whatnot). Most Anglophones will go through their whole lives without every hearing the substitution of "America" by a speaker who means "the Americas" - this isn't offensive, it's just a statement of fact. Similarly, most Torontonians will go their whole lives without every hearing the old nickname "Methodist Rome", though our great great grandparents would've been intimately familiar with the name. American is widely understood to mean "of or relating to the United States" - if I said "I am an American", no anglophone would doubt my meaning (though I'm not an American, which my hyper-corrected Canadian spelling probably gives away). In contrast, "Pan-American" is widely recognised as referring to the Americas (for instance, in the PanAm Games, which is probably the most common encounterace.) WilyD 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Beeblebrox's comment on the anonymous user is fair, WilyD is the least indicated to support it, since he is doing exactly the same; not contributing anything positive to the discussion and directly insulting back, just as he did on the Archive 2 of this thread by using censurable words. WilyD's argument have been largely refuted in previous sections as can be seen in the archives, no need to go over the same yet again. Whoffmannm (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those people talkin about undue weight and neutrality wouldn't changing the intro from...

The Americas may alternatively be referred to as America; however, "America" may be ambiguous, as it is commonly used to refer to the United States of America.

to

The Americas or America (leaving terminolgy reasoning to that section)

...be giving it LESS weight (since there's less wording) and more neutrality (since it's not stating why one form is less correct than the other). Befroe people start accusing me of imperialism- i'm not american in any sense. i had the privelege to go to school in both Hong Kong and New Zealand, and they taught us in both places that America means the continent. ScottyMull (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

With regard to this recent edit to the article, can anyone confirm what the source provided actually says and whether the material added to the article is appropriate? I'm not disputing the edit at this time, since I haven't access to the book; but the material added seems somewhat speculative (as disputing a naming hypothesis on the basis of a rather dubious analogy with other place names), and I'd like to know exactly what the source says and how seriously it's intended to be taken. Deor (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another viewpoint

I have been called upon to assume participation in this Article, in the hopes of resolving editorial disputes. I'll review the Article, and do my best to offer suggestions for improvement, or to provide apparently necessary edits. I approach the task with respect for the views of all concerned, since the subject matter of the Article can easily trigger disharmony, based upon nationalistic sentiments rather than the objectivity expected of an encyclopedia. May we resolve such conflicts through mutual compromise, and respect for one another as editors. Prof.rick (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another option

The article could be called "North and South America."

I think the article should explicitly state the the terminology used in the US and elsewhere. In the US, North America and South America are pretty consistently regarded as two different continents, and of course it's rare in the US for "America" to mean North and South America together. The article would clearly be wrong if it gave the impression that both "the Americas" and "America" were used synonymously and with equal frequency all over the world. On the other hand, the article needs to be accurate about usage in Canada, Australia, the UK, and the rest of the English-speaking world. I can't help much with that. Mark Foskey (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An additional thought -- the article is about the collection continents and islands, not the English word. It really ought to spend a few sentences on how the lands are characterized in different languages. If it's true that Spanish speakers think of it as a single continent, not two, then the article ought to mention that. Mark Foskey (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of covered in the Teminology section, although it could do with being expanded a little.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.


These are on top of the six I already listed under the Lack of NPOV section.

America (also the Americas) a land mass of the New World or western hemisphere, consisting of the continents of North and South America, joined by the Isthmus of Panama. American adj. n. 1 a native or citizen of the United States. 2 a native or inhabitant of the continents of America. Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder. Reader's Digest Association Ltd (1993) New York. --p45. ISBN 0276421019

American adj. of America, esp. the United States. / n. native, citizen, or inhabitant of America, esp. the US. The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary: 5th Ed. Oxford University Press (2002) South Melbourne. --p31. ISBN 0195515234 The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English: 8th Ed. Oxford University Press (1992) London. --p37. ISBN 0198603452

American adj. 1 Belonging to the continent of America. Also, of or pertaining to its inhabitants. 2 Belonging to the United States. The Oxford English Dictionary: 2nd Ed (Volume 1). Clarendon Press & Oxford University Press (1989) Oxford --p397. ISBN 0198611862

American n. 1 a native or citizen of the United States. 2 a native or inhabitant of the continents of America. The Australian Oxford Dictionary: 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press (2004) South Melbourne. --p38. ISBN 0195517962

America [for Amerigo Vespucci], the lands of the Western Hemisphere - N. Amer. Middle Amer., and S. Amer. America and American are used frequently to refer specifically to the US. The Columbia Gazetteer of the World: 2nd Ed. (Volume 1). Ed. Saul B. Cohen. Columbia University Press (1998) New York. --p95. ISBN 0231110405

America n. 1 the United States of America. 2 Also, the Americas. the North and South American continents, considered as a whole, and including Central America and offshore islands. The Macquarie Dictionary: Federation Edition (Volume 1 of 2). The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd (2001) Sydney. --p57. ISBN 1876429151

America n. 1 United States 2 North America 3 South America 4 Also called the Americas. North and South America, considered together. Random House Webster's College Dictionary. Random House, Inc (1996) New York. --p44. ISBN 0679438866

America is the great landmass of the Western Hemisphere...It is made up of North and South America... The World Book Encyclopedia (Volume 1). World Book, Inc. (2006) Chicago. --p407. ISBN 0716601060

PROPOSED INTRO REPLACEMENT: America or the Americas is the second-largest isolated landmass on Earth. It is commonly divided into North and South America, and includes the regions known as Central America and the Caribbean. It is situated wholly within the Western Hemisphere, covering 8.3% of the Earth's total surface area (28.4% of its land area), and contains about 14% of the human population (about 900 million people).

The following is a continuation of the World Book excerpt (see above for source info), which lists the bounds of the mainland (I'm not using this as an argument, I'm just putting it in if anyone was interested in expanding the geography section: The mainland of America is the longest north-to-south landmass on Earth. The greatest distance of its mainland from north to south is about 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometres), from the Boothia Peninsula in Canada to Cape Froward in Chile. The westermost point of mainland America is at the Seward Peninsula on the west coast of Alaska. Northeastern Brazil is the easternmost point.

Night w (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That introduction would be a great improvement to the current one. SamEV (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amending to express my agreement with Deor on both points (below): it should be "The Americas or America", and that there should be subject–verb agreement. SamEV (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. I believe that this intro is far better than the current one. Whoffmannm (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ScottyMull (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the article is not going to be retitled "America", so "Americas" should be the first boldface term in the lead. (And the switch by Whoffmann to "The Americas or America …" results in faulty subject-verb agreement.) Deor (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should be "is" instead of "are" anyway--seeing as the article is referring to a single collectivity. Saying this collectivity "are a region" (when you're referring to a singular region) is incorrect. But ignore all that (I don't care to get into a discussion over grammar)--if that's your only problem with this proposed intro what about:
The Americas or America [form/consist of/constitute/comprise] the second-largest isolated landmass on Earth.
Night w (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree to change the intro for the one that 'Night w' proposes --Sinekonata (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

To naysayers, one need only consult the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online to corroborate the current long-standing article introduction and the meanings of 'Americas', 'western hemisphere', and 'New World' (selections):

  • America -- 2. or the Americas -- the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & South America & the West Indies
  • western hemisphere - often capitalized W&H; the half of the earth comprising North and South America and surrounding waters
  • New World -- western hemisphere; especially: the continental landmass of North and South America]

The above definitions clearly corroborate content in the long-standing introduction. And, despite much discussion and an overpreponderance of red-linked editors commenting (arguably sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry), there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus to change it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel there has been sockpuppetry (and I would agree it is a distinct possibility) then prepare a case and request a checkuser. While I have so far not been convinced by those arguing that "America" and "Americas" are interchangably used in the English-speaking world to describe the landmass there was a degree of consensus for the text. It had not radically changed the previous text of the intro as some had wished and retained the same basic elements as before.
Furthermore, while I am clear in my mind that N.America and S.America are two distinct and seperate continents, as was pointed out the inclusion that they were continents was superflous and grist to the mill of the ongoing conflict - if visitors are genuinely confused about what North America or South America are they can click on the links to the respective articles.
With regard to the New World and the Western Hemisphere it is incorrect to say they are synonomous with the Americas. Click on the articles and you will see that both include larger areas than just the Americas. The version you oppose has been relatively stable for some time, and the onus is on you to gather a consensus to change it. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The introduction can stand for some improvement, as pointed out. However, arguably, if it ain't broke, don't fix it: a glance at the talk page/archives reveals that these issues have apparently surfaced before. North and South America were probably explicitly described as 'continents' to mollify those who would describe them as something less (e.g., subcontinents) despite the overwhelming reckoning in usual English as being the former. Britannica does this, but am receptive to removing that notation.
In addition, "The Americas is the region" sounds incorrect; compare with saying: "America is the region". The prior version -- with 'The Americas are (correctly) the 'lands' ' -- doesn't sound as awkward. In the recent version, also, 'The Americas' are noted as a region, which are comprised of 'islands and regions': rather contorted, I believe. The prior version is less so and IMO better than this conciliatory melange.
Moreover, the prior, long-standing introduction does not indicate that the Americas are synonymous with the Western Hemisphere or New World (though, as above, that case can be made): it merely places those lands in those areas (of this or that) and uses a frame of reference that most should be able to understand, with appropriately linked articles if they do or don't. The association between the Americas and New World is common enough (with more expansive definitions perhaps being more a fringe reckoning) that this merits reference upfront. Furthermore, the prior introduction was stable for an even longer time than the recent version, which seems to me to not be rooted in a clear consensus. So -- coupled with the above -- the onus is on those who want to change it to justify why -- to date, not yet done to satisfaction. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the fact that, at present, the Wikipedia articles describing the New World and the Western Hemisphere differ from your definitions. To imply in this page that America, without doubt, is the only region associated with these terms, when the articles for those terms say otherwise would be a huge contradiction. If you disagree with what defines the New World and/or the Western Hemisphere--go to those pages and state your sources there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Night w (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the content in those articles reinforce the prior lead; however, I believe there is a policy that Wikipedia articles are not to be used as a primary or secondary source when buttressing content in other articles. (Also, see below.) And the prior, long-standing lead doesn't imply that 'America' is the only region associated with either term: just merely that the Americas are on that portion of the globe opposite the 'Old World' and (part-and-parcel) the eastern hemisphere, without being too cryptic. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that I don't have a potted bio makes me a sock puppet? What's to stop me writing a fake one? Anyway, the OED says that the New World is "A continent or country discovered or colonized at a comparatively late period" (therefore including the Antipodes, discovered much more recently than the Americas, and even explaining South Africa's inclusion in New World wines -- SA was colonised relatively recently). Now the term is more strongly associated with the Americas than elsewhere, but it is not used exclusively as a synonym. Prof Wrong (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but there seems to be too many redlinked editors for me to be convinced that sockpuppetry isn't going on. So, I may report this.
As for what the OED says, I can't comment just yet, but I know that a repository of other referenced works invariably relates the New World to the Western Hemisphere or the Americas specifically. Other commentators have to do a much better job in justifying poorly worded changes to the introduction. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the OED is considered the authority on UK English, and a pretty good reference for international varieties to boot. I cannot accept that a dictionary built from independently observed usage can be ignored simply because you have more less well-respected sources that disagree with it. Besides, when it comes to words, you have to accept all senses in all dictionaries, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- ie Webster does not categorically say "New World is never used to refer to eg Australia or New Zealand. What it does say is that Webster's editors have never seen it used that way, but the OED's editors have. This may be due to the fact that the OED is published in a different country. Now this is en.wikipedia.org, not en_US.wikipedia.org, so falling back on a US-only term where it disagrees with the rest of the English-speaking world isn't appropriate.
And this redlinked editor doesn't do sockpuppeting.
Prof Wrong (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then there may only be support to remove 'New World' from the intro, but I yet believe that you haven't conclusively justified why based on other sources above. I don't dispute the OED per se, but I have yet to consult it and, so, don't necessarily concur with your presentation. If memory serves, the OED doesn't expand at length about geographical entities as much as other dictionaries/compendiums do. As well, you completely removed relevant links (e.g., North/South America) in your last edit, restoring the prior badly worded version, so I've restored the prior introduction mildly rephrased. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford definitions
Upon consulting my edition of the The New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001), which is not exactly the same as but close enough to the full-up multivolume edition, the Americas (under the 'America' entry) is defined as (p. 53):
  • a land mass of the western hemisphere consisting of the continents of North and South America joined by the isthmus of Panama
the 'Western hemisphere' is defined as (p. 2098):
  • the half of the earth containing the Americas
The 'New World' is defined as (p. 1249):
  • North and South America regarded collectively in relation to Europe, especially after the early voyages of European explorers
These definitions generally concur with the prior long-standing intro. Given that the more expansive definition for NW in the Wiki article is unsourced (though that viewpoint may or may not be valid), and based on the above, challenges regarding the prior long-standing intro seem not to have much weight (IMO) and I generally defer to my prior comments. I'm open to edits for enhancing the intro ... but the recent retrofit is insufficient. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above changes what the OED says. You are discounting it simply because you haven't personally seen it.
Besides, if you look again at what you've quoted you'll see that the term "Western Hemisphere" includes but is not limited to the Americas: "the half of the Earth containing the Americas" is larger than the Americas themselves, and I reckon you'd be hard pressed to divide the map in half in such a way as to exclude all landmasses not on the North or South American continental plates. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is being discounted, it is just being put into context and equitably reconciled with other references. And the long-standing intro is less limiting -- not to mention better worded -- than the flawed successor.
Moreover, in fact, if you glance at 'Western Hemisphere', there's the following referenced notation:
  • [Western Hemisphere] is also used to specifically refer to the Americas (or the New World) and adjacent waters, while excluding other territories that lie geographically in the hemisphere (parts of Africa, Europe, Antarctica, and Asia); thus, it is sometimes referred to as the American hemisphere.[1]
There seems little more to discuss. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Though this issue is apparently resolved, and in furtherance of the above, I will place here the definition for 'Western Hemisphere' as found in the Random House Dictionary (this is also in the print edition) to ensure it doesn't recur:

  • 1. the western part of the terrestrial globe, including North and South America, their islands, and the surrounding waters.
  • 2. that half of the earth traversed in passing westward from the prime meridian to 180° longitude.

As exhibited, the term is used in both a more limiting and expansive sense. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of the Americas

What´s the GDP of the Americas??

This is really more a question for the Reference Desk than for here; but, in any event, the numbers for the individual nations are here. All you need to do is add them up. Deor (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the world was North America?

The section "Formation" currently says:

South America broke off from the west of the supercontinent Gondwanaland around 135 million years ago (Ma), forming its own continent. Starting around 15 Ma, the collision of the Caribbean Plate and the Pacific Plate resulted in a series of volcanoes along the border that created a number of islands. The gaps in the archipelago of Central America filled in with material eroded off North America and South America, plus new land created by continued volcanism. By 3 Ma, the continents of North America and South America were linked by the Isthmus of Panama, thereby forming the single landmass of the Americas.

The way it currently sounds, North America somehow has a special status that makes its position assumed to be known by everyone. I skipped through the last 1500 edits of this article without finding any additional text, then poked around some related articles like Gondwana and Laurentia, but didn't find any sourced statements from which I could derive a suitable introduction of NAm, like:

South America broke off from the west of the supercontinent Gondwanaland around 135 million years ago (Ma), forming its own continent, and began moving toward Laurentia, which was already largely in its configuration as North America.

(I'm not asserting that the above is true; it's just an example that should be summarized from reliable sources.) Could someone who has such sources add this context, so that North America doesn't magically appear toward the end of the paragraph? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Good morning/afternoon/evening;

Barring any objections, I have taken the Medcab case filed a while back. Lets do some brainstorming in the sections below (ideas only, no discussion please)Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night, can you provide a proposed rewrite? Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the addition of America unacceptable? Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone hunt down the relevant policy? Setting aside my mediator hat for a minute, the issue I see with Americas and America is that they require different verb forms. However, we really should look at policy and see if there is a directive that should be adhered to. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night w's views on introduction text

There are 18 sources listed above which give precedence to America over Americas. A standard Wiki introduction will give both versions in the lead (i.e. Xa or Xb is...). If differing terminology needs to be addressed, the page has a Terminology section for that. The current intro gives undue weight to differing terminology, does not give equal precedence to the two forms like a WP article should, and also argues why one form is considered less correct or more confusing than the other--which might be justified in some communities in the English-speaking world, but such statements should be confined to the section provided for. Night w (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate isn't about what constitutes the Western hemisphere or New World. Proposal A was the initial proposal, but Proposal B (which is pretty close to how things are written now) works fine too. The argument is that the intro should be written as a standard WP intro, with both standard forms of the name used in the lead sentence. Night w (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bosonic, it might be the primary sense for the term as used in the United States, where the people don't have an informal name of their own to refer to their country, but not in English as used internationally (per the 18 sources quoted in this talk page). As stated in WP:UE, a standard Wikipedia article mentions both common forms in the lead. Night w (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No: note that it's the 'Oxford Guide to the English Language' and the reference does not qualify which variant of English it is applicable to; besides, since the guide is modelled on Fowler's, it focuses more often than not on British English. As well, you only need to glance at The Economist to see an example of the different uses.[2][3] Moreover, given the aforementioned ambiguity, you have yet to demonstrate how the current lead is inequitable; in fact, your proposals for the lead convey that there is no issue regarding nomenclature, when in fact it is noteworthy. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's noteworthy, but you've still failed to give reason as to why both forms should not be listed at the very beginning, in respect to a standard WP article (WP:UE). By sticking one form on the end of the intro and referring to it as an "alternative" and thus "lesser" usage, readers who use America instead of Americas are forced to rethink their usage as perhaps being incorrect--even though it's the truer form. I guarantee that you'll find more definitions of "the Americas" under the heading "America" than the other way around. Night w (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...not that I'm suggesting a change of the title of the page. I'm just curious as to why WP has Turin as "Turin, or Torino" but this page is different... Night w (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've given plenty of reasons why the lead should not be as proposed. For example, there is no such confusion between "Turin, or Torino" (i.e., they refer to the same thing), whereas there is ambiguity in the current context: 'America', in English, more often than not refers to the United States. To suggest otherwise -- per your proposals -- implies they are on equal footing in English without issue when they clearly (i.e., as referenced and per policy) are not.
As well, you refer to one as 'truer', which in and of itself says something. I do believe you previously proposed that this article be at 'America', and are now proposing altered leads as a conciliation. You've yet to convince me -- or others -- of the utility for change, and there's no consensus for the change. So ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to reword your proposed text so it is grammatically correct? Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, it is not just a matter of grammatical correctness but of propriety. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As referenced??? The majority of sources cited on this page define America as a landmass; many make no mention of the Americas or the United States. It might be how they use the word in your country, but in many parts of the English-speaking world, they have a different way of using the language. So if this is indeed an English article addressing a global audience, why would we not follow WP when there is clearly a divided usage when referring to the subject in question?
Also, I've never advocated moving the page to 'America'. Some editors have proposed it, and the case was left open that possibility in order to accomodate their views. I've never supported it --quote me if I'm wrong. I also think you might have misunderstood my meaning of the word "truer" --I used it to mean more pure or conservative, (i.e. it stays true to the original form of the name used to define the subject). Night w (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the article already deals with divided usage equitably, for aforementioned reasons. You claim the majority of references which you have provided support your position; yet for any encyclopedic treatment of the 'landmass', it is generally referred to or noted as in the 'Americas' (e.g., Britannica). In most of the references above you refer to, the entries list multiple senses for 'America', reinforcing that this isn't clear-cut.
And, yes, as referenced. 'In my country'? What part of the aforementioned notion regarding Oxford do you not understand? It is clear. But, it isn't alone: Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (3rd ed.) indicates the following (p. 42):
  • ... in this application the plural form the Americas is the usual one, all the lands of the Western Hemisphere incl. North America, South America, and the West Indies.
which is already noted above by others in response to prior commentary. Since we seem to forget easily, I will add these two references to said notion in the article.
And, yes: you have proposed that this article be at 'America' [4]:
  • If we cannot reach a consensus to move the page to America, then I would be willing to compromise if the intro was altered to how a normal Wikipedia introduction is written ...
Anyhow, my position above is clear: there is no demonstrated need for change, since the lead already equitably deals with the topic matter. So, I will sit back now and await others to comment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of the discussions above. It is quite clear that there are two major opposing POV, one stating that 'The Americas' is the correct and most common name for the landmass that the other POV use to name 'America'.

What is sure to me is that no compromise was found and that the title as well as the introduction show one POV clearly stepping on the other. I would like the half of those arguments and their sources to be taken a little more seriously as they are for now neglected without any good reason.

Whether it is 'The Americas or America' or 'America or the Americas' doesn't really matter for now (as the article is named 'Americas' why not just pick the first one), I agree that there shouldn't be editing without discussion. And the discussion to this point shows the following:

there is one source making no use of the term 'America' as defining the landmass from south Chile to north Canada which is clearly in favor of not even mentioning the word as a continent.
there are 19 sources using the term 'America' as a continent. Among those, some use 'Americas' along with it and some don't mention it. this is clearly in favor of the use of the term 'America' as the continent. To some extent it also refutes the use of the term 'Americas' as it is not used in some of the these dictionaries or encyclopedias.

The number of different valid sources (note that these are from publications from many countries such as USA., UK., New Zealand and Australia) being highly in favor of using the term 'America' to define the whole landmass I propose to change the introduction now for the one that 'Night w' submitted which has been more approved than opposed (4 to 2).

If any further editing would have to happen on the subject let's hope that as we are responsible editors, sources will be previously added to the discussion. --Sinekonata (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, this edit was unacceptable, amidst discussion and without even an edit comment. Any similar edits without discussion and consensus will be corrected without further comment.
Second, how does one derive 19 references and 4:2 support in favour of 'America'? A number of other clear, sources have been provided or otherwise mentioned, glazed over in the aforementioned counts, though I've not done a count or list on either side -- someone else can. As well, as of this note, 3 commentators in this section so far support the prior lead and 2 support the proposals: even if it ended there, that's the 60% threshold required for a renewed consensus (and 'renewed' given long-term stability of the lead). Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I should have mentioned that I would edit the intro right after I finished my comment, my bad, I'm new to the conflict editing process.

And amidst what discussion?, this is not even a discussion, the only one trying to achieve consensus and quoting more than one source here is Night w. The sources that btw are clearly (19 of them) using the word 'America' as the continent. On the other hand the only source quoted twice that does not mention 'America' as a continent is this one:

In current use: either continent of the Western Hemisphere (North America or South America); often, specifically, the United States of America (q.v.); also, although in this application the plural form the Americas is the usual one, all the lands of the Western Hemisphere including North America, South America, and the West Indies.

And as for the 4:2, yes sir, there are 4 pros to Night w's intro proposition (including himself and excluding myself as I seconded the proposition after my comment) in the following order: 2pros, 1con, 2pros, 1con... this is just denying democracy (as it's now 5:2) and sabotaging knowledge. --Sinekonata (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for editing process, it doesn't really work that way -- you garner consensus for what may be contentious edits.
Your commentary is replete with selection bias. Actually, a number of sources have been indicated or quoted directly in support of the current lead, e.g., Merriam-Webster, Oxford -- that covers the two most prevalent varieties of English (more or less), American and British respectively. Even if you could produce a plethora of sources in support of your position (and there is no debate that 'America' may be used in English to refer to the lands of the Western hemisphere), this is about the equitable treatment of topic matter in the lead. Proposed edits seek to diminish ambiguity regarding terminology where it is significant in English -- in which Americas is prevalent when referring to the Western Hemsiphere and America more often than not used to refer to the United States -- and, simply put, arguments in support of change (or, at least, the changes proposed) are unconvincing and mildly blusterous. Also see here, where the prevalent sense of America is noted at least twice (Wikipedia mirror excluded). As well, your counting system is unique (2,1,2,1 ... like, how do you get that?), and Wikipedia is not a democracy. So, yes, this is not really a discussion thread I will continue with until someone has something worthwhile to contribute. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok man, if you go back at the section "Lack of NPOV" you'll see people discuss about whether or not America is as often used as Americas. A lot of these users have been only giving THEIR point of view on the matter (as yourself do now). Until one user (Deor) expressed that these opinions are fruitless as they are too subjective, that the sources prevail and then quoted that same source you quoted yourself. This was the first non-subjective step. It was followed by Night w's quotation of 6 dictionaries and encyclopedias proving the opposite POV. After this, in the "Sources" section he provided 8 more sources, requested a mediation (as his previous sources were neglected) and proposed a constructive alternative to the introduction. As a reply to his proposition, the following comments:

That introduction would be a great improvement to the current one. SamEV (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Amending to express my agreement with Deor on both points (below): it should be "The Americas or America", and that there should be subject–verb agreement. SamEV (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I second that. I believe that this intro is far better than the current one. Whoffmannm (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. ScottyMull (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as the article is not going to be retitled "America", so "Americas" should be the first boldface term in the lead. (And the switch by Whoffmann to "The Americas or America …" results in faulty subject-verb agreement.) Deor (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it should be "is" instead of "are" anyway--seeing as the article is referring to a single collectivity. Saying this collectivity "are a region" (when you're referring to a singular region) is incorrect. But ignore all that (I don't care to get into a discussion over grammar)--if that's your only problem with this proposed intro what about:
The Americas or America [form/consist of/constitute/comprise] the second-largest isolated landmass on Earth. Night w (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I do agree to change the intro for the one that 'Night w' proposes --Sinekonata (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

this makes 4 users pro (including Night w) to 2 con (SamEV having amended himself). If you don't see it, count again.

So as you see, except sharing your point of view you didn't contribute one bit in the process of this discussion, this is also true as for me (I'll leave the discussion anyway). Next time you say "a number of sources have been indicated or quoted directly in support of the current lead, e.g., Merriam-Webster, Oxford", quote them or direct us to them. And when you say "...English -- in which Americas is prevalent when referring to the Western Hemsiphere" just look at what the sources in the discussion state first or contribute to the discussion by adding sources. I no longer wish to discuss with you unless you have something interesting (read: sourced) to say. Sinekonata (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in between your responses, you obviously didn't amend your counting system, since 3 editors have commented in this mediation section in support of the status quo: myself, Deor, and Bebblebrox. There was previously expressed concern at the number of single-purpose accounts participating in the discussion in support of change, so I challenge their validity here.
Yes, a number of sources have been quoted or referred to, and I've contributed far more than you. I'm open to change, but this isn't it. The only thing you seem to have contributed is blusterous commentary. In fact, you appear to have made some 2 dozen edits in total (at least with this user name) and started editing a few days ago, so I wonder. No matter. Since you have acknowledged your own lack of utility throughout this discussion thread, I am happy to 'end' it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wooaaah...I see things have taken off. First of all, Bosonic-- Did you read the rest of the comments on that talk page? Namely here: [5]:

  • Excellent! I'll start rounding everyone up. But hey, do you think maybe we can take this in another direction? ...Address possible changes to the introduction as the main focus? I think that's what is causing most of the conflict, and changing the page's title altogether isn't going to receive much support at the moment (including from myself)... What are your thoughts?

The mediator originally left the case open to the idea of a title change in respect to the views of other editors who proposed it, which has never included myself. What you quoted hardly constitutes a proposal for change on my behalf. Anyway, I'll keep this about the article... The article does not deal correctly with divided usage. Policy on divided usage:

  • Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name...

As established by numerous sources (and I can certainly find more), the use of America is very common. This Britannica source you quoted has "(also called America)" at the top under the title. Many of the sources I've quoted don't mention "the Americas" at all, and the ones that do retain "America" as the main entry, including the source you yourself quoted before to verify some claim about the Western hemisphere. You keep saying that the current Intro deals with the divided usage "equitably", yet according to quoted Wikipedia Policy, it doesn't. And when you take into account that editors have been debating terms in the Intro and even the title of the page for three full pages, the word "equitably" and "consensus" don't really spring to mind. Also thankyou to Sinekonata for your imput--things were getting a little one-on-one. Cheers! Night w (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been read. With reference to your recitation of policy: (1) your position seeks to insinuate an equality of the terms that is demonstrably false, i.e., one is not as common as the other when referring to the landmass/region, as cited, and therefore contrary to NPOV policy; and (2) as indicated above, the primary sense of America nowadays is in reference to the United States. As well, there's a distinct difference between simply listing any number of references with a particular rendering or ordering of terms, and references which clearly and explicitly indicate applicable usage and commonality. Anyhow, you and I repeating ourselves will not yield anything, so I will cut this short and await commentary from others. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer number of references--and the fact that some of them make no mention of the Americas--clearly demonstrates commonality. America is a common designation for either or both North America and South America, for the western hemisphere as a whole, and for the United States of America -- Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (2000). The usage is clearly divided. You've got two pages of editors lobbying for changing the article's title! It seems that no matter what evidence is put forth, you won't concede that there are other communities who use the language differently to how you use it. Without a compromise with regards to the introduction that addresses the two forms equitably, I don't see this very lengthy conflict coming to an end. Night w (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox's views on introduction text

Bosonic dressing's views on introduction text

This case is not only ill-defined but seems pointless, with arguments not having been credibly challenged in more than 3 weeks (at least for notions regarding the meaning/context of the term 'western hemisphere'). Simply put, per Beeblebrox, the long-standing introduction of this article is clear, equitably reflects the source matter, and is buttressed by references in the article and its talk page. There seems little more to discuss. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Version A is not acceptable, simply because it is inaccurate, or imprecise in the least: 'America' also includes nearby islands, a few of which (the Aleutians) are not in the western hemisphere proper, i.e., that half of Earth west of the Prime Meridian (not the looser definition which is synonymous with 'America'). It also doesn't mention the New World, though this term is often used as a synonym, and 'America' includes other regions of note too (e.g., Latin America, Anglo-America) -- after all, the Americas are the various lands and regions of the Western hemisphere.
Version B is more passable; yet, I see no reason to change the current lead. There is a reason why this article is at 'Americas' (and United States where it is at) and not 'America' (which is a disambiguation page, and simply expands on the two major meanings and a number of minor ones): to reduce ambiguity. In English, the primary sense for the term (per the Oxford Companion to the English Language) is with reference to the United States. This is not insignificant and must be equitably pointed out, and the current lead does this: the proposed versions do not in, this, an article in the English Wikipedia. So, the current lead is fine. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In furtherance of the above, below is the excerpt from the Oxford Companion to the English Language regarding 'America' (p. 33; ellipses denote omitted examples); it may also prove useful in tweaking other content in the article:
  • AMERICA [16c: from the feminine of Americus, the Latinized first name of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (1454-1512). A claim is also made for the name of Richard Ameryk, sheriff of Bristol and patron of John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), the 16c Anglo-Italian explorer of North America. The name America first appeared on a map in 1507 by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, referring to the area now called Brazil]. 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: ... However, the term is open to uncertainties: ...
There. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor's views on introduction text

I'll confine myself to quoting a couple of my comments from elsewhere on this page:

I'm not going to get into the argumentative side of this; I'd just like to add a quotation from a source for reference. This is a portion of the entry America in Webster's New Geographical Dictionary (1984):

In current use: either continent of the Western Hemisphere (North America or South America); often, specifically, the United States of America (q.v.); also, although in this application the plural form the Americas is the usual one, all the lands of the Western Hemisphere including North America, South America, and the West Indies.

There seems to be quite a bit of "transglobal" usage of plural Americas, nevertheless. The British Museum, the BBC, The Economist, British academia, the Australian government, the New Zealand government, and this organization based in Germany, among many other non-U.S. organizations, all have apparently concluded that they can refer to "the Americas" without their audiences' scratching their heads and saying "What the devil are they talking about?" The lead of this article already explains that singular America is also used to refer to the same totality, so I must confess I'm not seeing the problem here.

It seems to me that some people won't be satisfied unless this article is renamed as America, but I don't see that happening, given the drift of the numerous previous discussions. Deor (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal

I am proposing this slight rewording because it appears that there is no single unified standard for what to call the American landmass.

The Americas(citations), also known as America(citations), are the second-largest isolated landmass on Earth. It is commonly divided into the continents of North America and South America, and includes the regions known as Central America and the Caribbean. It is situated wholly within the Western Hemisphere, covering 8.3% of the Earth's total surface area (28.4% of its land area), and contains about 13.5% of the human population (about 900 million people).

By adopting this rewording we do the following;

  • Fulfill the mandate that common names be addressed in the introduction.
  • Create a neutral introduction that tells it as it is.
  • Provide multiple citations for both names allowing people to do their own research

Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a compromise? It it has been discounted above for a number of reasons (namely, imprecise), and I am perplexed as to why you would put forth a proposal that a minority of editors -- if that -- support and which you yourself questioned in terms of verb-tense agreement. The current intro already fulfills the first mandate, equitably tells it as it is in English, and can be amended to include additional supporting citations. Yet, if there is to be an alternate version, and I see insufficient support for that, IMO it would be similar to the current introduction but with with 'America' following 'Americas' upfront set off within commas, i.e., per Proposal B above, and the last sentence regarding usage more or less as is. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that proposal--beyond perhaps a correction of verb-tense agreement in the first sentence; although simply changing the "are" to "form" should fix that.
The current introduction is far more imprecise when you consider that, in defining the Western hemisphere, it gives sole precedence to America and gives the allusion that these countries plainly don't exist where they are. I see that there are a few outliers of the Aleutians west of 180°--so put an "almost" in front of "wholly"; it's a simple solution and I'm all in favour of accuracy. The proposal does indeed fail to mention the New World, but I'm sure we can fit it in there somewhere--although in doing so we should avoid the implication that the New World does not include many other regions and countries (including my own), as many will see that as an Americentric perspective that is not in line with NPOV. Now, if you want to push forward the varying definitions of those two terms, do it in their respective articles. This introduction is about a completely different subject, and should be written from a conventional global viewpoint, not a regionalist one.
In response to Bosonic, when this proposal was put forth before, the count was 4-2 in favour of the proposal, so where you got "minority" from I'll never know. Night w (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Oxford reference, a leading guide regarding the use of English, the 'Western hemisphere' (which has a number of meanings) and 'New World' are used when describing the Americas -- you have yet to persuade why this lead should be different. This is an encyclopedia after all, where context is important, not a concise dictionary. In addition, commentary regarding what Australians may or may not include is irrelevant unless sourced, because your word is insufficient.
No: your count is incorrect. In this section, 3 commentators support the status quo (myself, Deor, and Beeblebrox), only you and Sinekonata (who just popped up out of the blue) have supported it. So, your miscount (despite this being pointed out previously) and the recurrence of this issue a number of times beforehand not in your favour to me demonstrates that you've a point to prove. I challenge the inclusion of previous commentators who have not clearly iterated support since (in this section) and the apparent use of single-purpose accounts (pointed out previously) that have not returned to the discussion. I could also climb back into the archives to point out and include any number of supporters of the long-standing lead. So, 3 to 2 against. Even if your count is correct, clearly amended 4-3 given the above, the amount of support for change is still shy of the 60% minimum threshold which generally indicates consensus. So, since no clear consensus yet exists for the proposed changes, the introduction won't be changed yet. That's it for now. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise v2

The Americas(citations), also known as America(citations), form the second-largest isolated landmass on Earth. It is commonly divided into the continents of North America and South America, and includes the regions known as Central America and the Caribbean. It is situated wholly within the Western Hemisphere, covering 8.3% of the Earth's total surface area (28.4% of its land area), and contains about 13.5% of the human population (about 900 million people).

There is no disagreement between the subject and the verb. This version gives precedence to Americas, while quickly mentioning America. It is not for us to decide which term is correct. The policy is quite clear in stating that all common names must be in the introduction. This introduction would satisfy the policy and be neutral, due to the citations attached to each name. Should Americas be the more prevalent term, the amount of citations for it will clearly convey that to the reader. As it stands, the end of the current introduction appears to violate SYNTHESIS, because it draws a conclusion rather than restating the sources provided. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, a number of reputable references already indicate the commonality of the terms in English, and the Oxford reference clearly and explicitly iterates what this article's introduction already says regarding ambiguity of the term -- so, it is so not a synthesis and product of original research. Thank you for reminding me that I need to add those references and tweak appropriately.
Second, a clear consensus has yet to emerge in support of this change to the lead, so it won't change as above.
Third, your 'compromise' is imprecise, not just for reasons stated above (e.g., Western hemisphere) but due to the simple fact that many references in English already include Central America and the Caribbean in North America.[6]
Lastly, per above, your involvement has been confusing: you initially thought "the issue I see with Americas and America is that they require different verb forms", when that really isn't it. You since seem to have come down on one side, in support of a version which a minority supports despite alternates which you have glazed over willingly or not -- and that seems to me to be a breach of a mediator's duty. So, hereafter, I reject your involvement as a mediator. Moreover, I will comment hereafter as needed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how writing a compromise proposal is a breach of neutrality. I have purposely not weighed in either side. I have tried to work out a version that incorporates both your concerns. As per your request, I will immediately recuse myself from duty as a mediator. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is not that you wrote what you believe was a compromise proposal but that you did so without apparent regard of commentary. Not only myself but night w pointed out that his 'Proposal B' above (which is largely Compromise 3 below) might be acceptable (as opposed to his 'Proposal A', which I find unacceptable), yet you presented us with a version based on the latter and then did so again. Whether this was an unintentional oversight or not is now moot, but it came across as showing favouritism to one version -- and one viewpoint -- over another. In the very least, it exhibits inattentiveness. Nonetheless, a number of your comments were unclear or contradictory (e.g., regarding verb forms), which have been pointed out. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry for any errors I may have made unintentionally. My school has been keeping me busy with end of term work, which has decreased my focus. I really should have expressed my points more clearly. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise v3

Aside from this, per above, I propose the following (with whichever references, but only if a consensus opts for change):

Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. But first of all, attacking me surmising me with "objectives" and "points to prove" is not helping the discussion in the slightest. I'm trying to reach an agreement over a conflict that has filled three talk pages and will continue to arise if not resolved. Making accusations and insinuations about mine and everyone else's involvement will not help to settle the matter.
Now, there apparently seems to be multiple definitions of the Western hemisphere and the New World; this is granted--and while I consider using arbitrary definitions as opposed to conventional ones in the first case, and putting "generally" in brackets to define the second, far more "imprecise" than established models--the conflict is about divided usage, not the definitions of WH and NW, so lets leave them out of it and as is if they're going to complicate matters.
As for Compromise v3, it still contains that last sentence which implies that the term in question is some lesser usage, which is less correct or more confusing.
  • In English, America may be ambiguous, as it is commonly used to refer to the United States of America.
It still maintains the implication that the usage of it in this (geographic) context is somehow not common, which is clearly contradictory to sources referenced on this page. There's a terminology section established for that kind of information; it is misleading and contradicts WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV to include it in the Intro.
You've put a link on America. The main reason for this, I assume, is to make the reader aware that this is an ambiguous term that is often used to mean the United States---but you state this again in the last sentence of the intro. By linking one form elsewhere, in addition to detailing what is wrong with that same form, you're pushing the same POV and is not giving the two forms equal precedence, which is what this conflict is about.
Also, if we're sticking to one definition or the other--and to avoid imprecision and ambiguity--I'd propose removing the bracketed "generally" from in front of "New World". Night w (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping in to say that "America" should not be wikilinked in any possible version of the lead. We don't link to disambiguation pages in running text. Deor (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing parentheses from New World, which i retained given the 'more or less' notation in the Oxford reference.
Otherwise, I am pointing out apparent clarifications or contradictions in your behaviour and that of the mediator. If you interpret that as an attack or can't deal with that, that's not my problem. The fact that there are pages of archived discussion is not necessarily relevant, since that implies it totally revolves around this issue (though much of it does) and ignores that some individuals may yet have a point to prove or do so irregardless.
Now, as for this attempt at a compromise, I added the link to America in the lead since that is a legitimate dab page. Alternatively, a hatnote atop the article would seem appropriate. (Thanks, Deor.) To not somehow link to the term would seem odd, which is one bonus of the current introduction. If you can suggest alternate wording for the last sentence (e.g., "more common"), I'm all ears -- we could even sub in the verbiage verbatim from one/both of the references (M-W or Oxford) above ... but, given the notability of the term's use and ambiguity in English, its outright omission/removal is not an option unless a consensus says so. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the last sentence of the proposal be converted to a footnote? Perhaps its just my peculiar brand of English, but it doesn't seem to flow logically. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If so, this would at least require some mention of the term's ambiguity in the introduction. I mean, much of this debate is about the necessary mention of this in the lead, which a consensus has yet to support the removal of. Similarly, at least the couple brief entries above (M-W, Oxf) seem fit to mention the term's ambiguity in what are relatively brief entries, so it is arguably notable upfront. Stemming from that, this mention does not seem 'out of place' with the current introduction. I believe there may yet be a way to 'neuter' the sentence -- e.g., "In English, the primary sense of America is in reference to the United States of America" or "In English, with reference to the lands and regions of the Western hemisphere, the plural form is the usual one" (both of which can be referenced) or similar, with a link to the terminology section below. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain further, the introduction starts off with how the Americas, aka America, are blank. It continues on what the Americas are and abruptly goes back to America. This does not seem to flow logically. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. As indicated above, then, the current introduction does flow logically, since it deals with America in the 3rd sentence. Another option is to move the America sentence immediately after the first, separated by a semicolon (thereby making it one sentence) and tweaked. A footnote, though possible, to me deprecates the prominent ambiguity of the term in English: its primary sense in English is in reference to the United States. To omit this from the introduction implies both are on par with reference to the Western hemisphere when, as sourced, they are not. Notation of this must be in the introduction somewhere, something which neither of night w's proposals or Compromise 2 addresses -- that's why they're unacceptable. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show a mockup of how the moved sentence would look? I think that would solve the logical flow problem I am seeing. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards Intro

Yes, correct and everything it's just flip-floped backwards.

Should read:

America is the lands of the Western hemisphere or (generally) the New World, consisting of the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions. America covers 8.3% of the Earth's total surface area (28.4% of its land area) and contain about 13.5% of the human population (about 900 million people). America may alternatively be referred to as The Americas;[1][2] however, The United States of America may be ambiguous, as it is commonly used to refered to America.[3]

Might have to use this and re-direct The Americas to America as they are the same entity, or just change the intro to what I have edited. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "America." The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ISBN 0-19-214183-X). McArthur, Tom, ed., 1992. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 33: "[16c: from the feminine of Americus, the Latinized first name of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (1454-1512). A claim is also made for the name of Richard Ameryk, sheriff of Bristol and patron of John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), the 16c Anglo-Italian explorer of North America. The name America first appeared on a map in 1507 by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, referring to the area now called Brazil]. 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: ... However, the term is open to uncertainties: ..."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americas&oldid=294937207"