Talk:Americas

North America+South America=America

The section heading says all that needs to be said on this. According to both logic and the Oxford English Dictionary, America is the land mass of the western hemisphere consisting of the continents of North and South America together from Kaffeklubben Island down to Tierra del Fuego.

This definition is consistent with the meaning of the word in over two dozen other European languages too, including French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Polish, Romanian and Hungarian, and in non-European languages like Turkish, Indonesian, Swahili, etc.....

To remove any doubts, I am a native English speaker and I'm well aware of the mistake made by most native English speakers of using America to mean the United States. You read that right: that usage is wrong and absurd. To see how asbsurd it is to use "America" to mean the United States, substitute America for the United States in the statement "The United States is in North America." This produces "America is in North America," which is obviously nonsense.

Some other editors will try to defend this mistaken usage, but I condemn it as the complete and utter irrationality that it is. Wikipedia should not uphold nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Think about people from the south of the U.S. Then... they are from South America? and are South Americans?. That's nonsense. America is not and has never been an official name of the United States. America is the name of a great continent/landmass of the Westhern Hemisphere in many places and languages of the world, including English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.14.99 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange, common sense and reliable English-language resources all strongly disagree. So weird.LedRush (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually they don't. There hasn't been a single source claiming that America is the official name of the US nor was there a source claiming that America is not used for the landmass.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Epikuro57. You do realize that that the OED also says this: used as a name for the United States. It's right under, and bulleted. Also note that it also makes no reference to this statement made: from Kaffeklubben Island down to Tierra del Fuego". Elockid ^(Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

For a wider representation, these dictionaries also give the following defintions for "America":

Merriam Webster:

1) either continent (North America or S. America) of the western hemisphere

2) or the Amer·i·cas the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the W. Indies

3) united states of america

Dictionary.com

1) United States.

2) North America.

3) South America

4) Also called the Americas. North and South America, considered together.

Collins English Dictionary

1) short for the United States of America

2) Also called: the Americas. the American continent, including North, South, and Central America Elockid ^(Talk) 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I realize that that the OED also says this: used as a name for the United States and that it also makes no specific reference to my statement "from Kaffeklubben Island down to Tierra del Fuego." It doesn't have to make specific reference to that: since those are the most northerly and southerly parts of North and South America respectively, that follows from the definition of the word.

As I stated explicity, I condemn the common usage that does not match the OED's definition. The OED definition conforms to logic and sense, the common usage does not. I'm aware that other, inferior "dictionaries" accept this mistaken usage, but they're irrelevant to me: the OED is the only dictionary I pay any attention to.

If you think that usage acceptable, then answer me this: how can America logically be in North America?--Epikuro57 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the non-dictionary reliable sources in English which indicate that the term "America" means anything other than the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)

Or even better, that it commonly refers to something else? Hot Stop 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I once pointed out in one of the interminable discussions on this page, many generations of schoolchildren have been taught that "Columbus discovered America" (as the abundant Google Books hits for the phrase attest). That's one widespread and (relatively) current "non-U.S." use of the term. Deor (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that's not modern usage of the term (unless language has stayed stagnant in the last 520 years) Even if I accept the premise, does that tidbit make any of the statements in the article inaccurate?LedRush (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's merely one current (certainly not a centuries-old) use of America in the "whole of the New World" sense. No, it doesn't "make any of the statements in the article inaccurate"; but it, along with other uses, does give the lie to those who have maintained on this page that "America" is never used in modern English to refer to the totality of the Americas. I've disagreed as stoutly as anyone else with those who think that Spanish or other usage of America and cognates should be normative in this article—even to the retitling of it in the singular—and I've pointed out that Americas is well-used in all national varieties of English (contra those who have maintained that it's a usage confined to the United States); but I'm not willing to go overboard in the other direction and maintain that the use of America to mean "anything other than the US" has no currency whatever. Deor (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Never is a strong word. I wouldn't say never, but it's darn close. "This sense of America has been primary in English since the 19th century, though not without some ambiguities or uncertainties" we're really underrepresenting the situation here. This is a step back from the old language.LedRush (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer LedRush's question from above, here are 3 books that use the single "America" with the meaning of "Americas"

• http://books.google.de/books?id=kqc1GIhK_wEC
• http://books.google.de/books?id=QH9-6AfxC_0C
• http://books.google.de/books?id=XBV1q4TGBJ4C (see table of content)

Moreover there are many current and common composite terms (Latin America, South America, Central America, North America, Anglo America, ...), in which the America part refers to the Americas and not the United States. The phrase "Columbus discovered America", which has been already mentioned above, gets 215,000 hits on Google Books ([1]), whereas "Columbus discovered the Americas" comes up with only 1,220 Hits ([2])

Consequently the use of America for The Americas/new world is not rare, instead it is actually quite common, but "almost exclusively" restricted to a specific contexts (history related subjects) and specific composite terms or phrases. This of course accordingly reflected in all those dictionaries, that list "the Americas/the New World" as one meaning of America.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So, only two of those books seem to use the terms, and those two are talking about a concept 520 years ago. I think we all recognize that when discussing the landmass 5 centuries ago, some sources use the term. Can we get back to the issue at hand? And the idea that Latin America, or North America has a specific meaning is not helpful for this discussion. I just don't see how any of this changes the focus of the article.LedRush (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not 2 but all 3 books use the term "America" for the Americas (look carefully). The issue at hand was that you asked for current publication using the term "America" for the Americas and I gave you 3. If you include composite terms and fixed, phrases I actually gave you a gazillion of examples.

As far as focus of the article is concerned the naming/language is at best of minor concern anyway, as WilyD has pointed out already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We must have vastly different definitions of relevant examples. Academic research on a term that is not in modern usage does not make that archaic use of the term modern.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If have no idea what "academic research on the term" you are talking about. Current academic usage of the term is obviously current usage and the composites and the phrase are current as well. As as relevance (for what exactly) is concerned, if you mean by relevance supporting your opinion, then yes indeed we have vastly different notions there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Alas, your examples simply don't do what you purport they do. If anything, they lend weight to the argument that the term in modern usage doesn't mean what you say it does.LedRush (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do I purport?--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That your examples are relevant to my question in more than a tangential way.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well they did precisely answer the question you asked above ("Can anyone point me to the non-dictionary reliable sources in English which indicate that the term "America" means anything other than the US?"). If you don't care for an actual answer, that's your business and not exactly surprising to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find any evidence to support your assertions, that's your issue. If you ever do, I'd love to see it.LedRush (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What assertions exactly? I'm not aware of having claimed anything that was unsourced or without evidence?--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So, only two of those books seem to use the terms, and those two are talking about a concept 520 years ago.

Urm... by that logic, the word "history" isn't in current usage, because it only ever refers to past concepts. Or to use an even more absurd example, the word "dinosaur" relates to a concept that ceased to exist millions of years before the word itself was invented, therefore the word never was, is or will be "current English".

Modern usage is self-evident -- searching the internet for the string "the southernmost tip of America" brings back references to both Tierra del Fuego and Florida. Both meanings are in current usage.Prof Wrong (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of you have totally missed the point. Usage that violates logic, sense and the defintion of the word is wrong, no matter how common it is. Hundreds of years ago everyone thought the world was flat, and guess what? They were wrong. The idea that America can be in North America is totally ridiculous and absurd.--Epikuro57 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Words and names may have multiple meanings. The name "America" can mean either of the definitions above. Saying that America is exclusively one or the other or claiming that it violates logic is absurd. Words/names can be used incorrectly. Saying that America is in North America is using the name incorrectly. However saying that Columbus discovered America or He/She has been to America (referring to the U.S.) are both valid and used correctly based on the context of the sentence. Furthermore, English like every other language change over time. This means that definitions change over time as well. The original usage of the name referred to both North and South America. However, due to the nature a language, the definition changed over time. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are very few things in any language that do not violate logic at some level. "I've got to do it." You understand that sentence, right? But logically, "I've got" implies that something has already been obtained... yet this is a future obligation. It breaks logic. That's language for you. Prof Wrong (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the solution is easy. I'll try to make some points:

1. We need to clarify that "in English" America is used primarily to refer to the US (without qualifying if this is right or wrong).
2. We also need to say that America is used in several other languages to mean a single continent comprising North and South America.

Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. Denying our English readers the concept that the word America (singular) in a vast part of the world means something else than only the US is wrong. We must extend knowledge, not restrict it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article already says this.LedRush (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not denying our readers knowledge of the subject, we have multiple other articles on the subject. But this article isn't the place for it. This article, at present, is absolute rubbish, because we're fighting about a tangentual point rather than trying to write an article about the subject. I worry, of course, that a push to bring the article up to a high standard (good or featured) will get derailed on that point, because I don't think the article can really be neutral unless we correctly represent that America is not used to mean the Americas, that sense is deprecated (although American to mean Pan-American is retailed in some contexts, biology and geology, it seems). But perhaps a push from C-class to B-class is possible. (Or even A, which is usually skipped because the A to Good step is so small, but may for us be unclimbable). WilyD 09:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article can really be neutral unless we correctly represent that America is not used to mean the Americas

Except that that wouldn't be neutral at all, because your little "correctly" there is imposing your view. Which is incorrect. The most common usage of "America" is as a synonym for the USA, but that does not mean the other usage is wrong or non-existent -- just less common.Prof Wrong (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would. The problem is undue emphasis; although in the strictly pedantic limit it isn't a non-existant usage, it's functionally equivalent; we don't devote any space in Earth to the belief in a flat Earth because such a belief is non-existant, even though some small number of people do believe it. The usage is so negligibly small that even discussing it is effectively endorsing it, given its complete unimportance.WilyD 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Prove that it's that negligible, then, and there will be no argument. Above, we've got citations from dictionaries that state that "America" is used that way. It takes more than a few uncited assertions to counter that evidence! Prof Wrong (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that that kind of argument generally won't fly with a reviewer, because they're likely to both speak English and be disinterested in the topic. Which leaves the article quality stuck at unreviewed levels (although it's obviously shit now). WilyD 08:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but... what? An argument based on the facts "won't fly with a reviewer"?!? What sort of reviewer are we talking about? What does speaking English have to do with it? Are you implying that all English-speakers agree with you? Sorry, but I spoke nothing but English until I went to high school. Any rational reviewer will bow to authority. Such as the Oxford English Dictionary. Prof Wrong (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of modern usage of the term to talk about the current western hemisphere and the modern countries contained therein? So far, I haven't see one. Perhaps there are some, but that the term is almost exclusively used to mean one thing is, as yet, uncontested by facts. And seeing as this article is about "the Americas", this type of discussion doesn't seem to merit much mention here.LedRush (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples for current/modern usage were given above already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked for modern use concerning the modern concept. Modern use explaining how people thought in the 16th century do not inform this discussion.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to ask a somewhat nonsensical question, that's your choice, but don't expect an answer. The question relevant for the article is whether there is a modern usage of the term. Because if there is we cannot describe the term as outdated usage in our article - period. You may of course ask the question if America is used in the context of "modern concepts" (whatever that's actually supposed to be), but that question is doubt irrelevant for the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The context of my comment was the previous comment upthread where I speculated that it may be impossible to get this article through a good article review or featured article review because we're catering to the POV-pushing of a couple editors who want to impose a strongly pro-American imperialism slant. Beyond that, yes, you, I, and all the other proficient English speakers here know America is not used to mean the Americas in modern English. Editors aren't stupid, and treating them like they're stupid (by insisting something they know is true isn't) won't win them over. WP:UNDUE applies, and as long as we're in wild violation of it, we have a serious problem. WilyD 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WilyD, are you calling me a liar? I just told you I'm a native, and yet all the other proficient English speakers here know America is no used to mean the Americas in modern English. I am a native, as I've already said. I also don't care that people from the US call themselves "Americans" -- in fact, I even call them that myself. I am not trying to impose a strongly pro-American imperialist slant -- I'm just telling you what I've read and heard: other native English-speakers using the term.

You're debating with the old "no true Scotsman" argument, and that means that you're going to simply paint any example I give you as anti-American propaganda.

I mean, if you can't accept the OED, then you're hardly going to accept travel site Wild Ambitions' description of Tierra del Fuego as "the southernmost tip of America". Of course, they mention Magellan on the page, so you'll discount it as being historical, which it isn't.

If I quoted a million examples, you'd find a way to dismiss them as irrelevant.

You are the only one that is insisting something is true which isn't. It's quite possible that you have never heard a native speaker say this, but I'm sure you're aware of this little thing called "dialectal variation". I didn't meet anyone who said "y'all" until I was 27, but I would never have claimed it wasn't genuine English.

Now here you are telling native English speakers that they are wrong/liars/crazy, and that no native speakers say this (except... and except... and except...)

Prof Wrong (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Without reliable sources to back this up, this does not inform the discussion.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources are already there -- several respected dictionaries. Prof Wrong (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not calling you anything. I'm also not "No True Scotsman-ing" - I haven't excluded anyone, except to acknowledge that "America" was used to mean "the Americas" historically - my impression is that this usage petered out about two hundred years ago (probably for the obvious reason), although that may be wrong - an actual timeframe would be nice (but I won't hold my breath, I doubt we'll be able to find it). Just as we wouldn't use "prove" to mean "test" in an article (although it's in quite common everyday usage in the idiom "The exception that proves the rule"), we shouldn't use "America" to mean "the Americas" which will at best serve to confuse the readers, and at worst to misinform them (well, and quite possibly insult them). WilyD 08:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are insulting people from the rest of America using "America" as a name for the United States, when America is not and has never been an official name of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.219.232 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

America isn't used to mean "the United States", except in quotes in the footnotes; it is used to mean the Americas, which is offensive to those of us who're from the Americas but aren't American (such as myself), because it implies we lack a national identity and rightly belong to the United States, which (unsurprisingly) an offensive proposition to many (indeed, Anglo-Canadians spend an inordinate amount of our cultural identity on how we aren't Americans, from Why we Act like Canadians to Talking to Americans. However, that's neither here nor there for this article, which shouldn't need to address that at all, except that a couple of editors insist on including the name "America", which forces us into a discussion of how "America" is rarely to never used to mean the Americas, in order to avoid confusing and deceiving our readers. WilyD 15:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your point of view. We don't belong to the United States because that country and America are two different things. America is not the US officially so it is not offensive, and if you are a Canadian then you are an American, like it or not. American is the demonym of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.149.85 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The country is America - what things are "officially" isn't relevant (hence why the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland article sits at United Kingdom, and is usually known as Britain). It is offensive to refer to Canadians as Americans, and I'll thank you to take that kind of racist prattle elsewhere. WilyD 09:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the country is the United States. "United States" and "United Kingdom" are official short names of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively, that's why those articles have those short names. Maybe for you things that are official are irrelevant, but that's you. Oh, and I really thought Canada was an American country, but it seems that for you American has only one meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.33.103 (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For the vast majority of native English speakers, America has only one meaning. Many Canadians often find it insulting to be called Americans because they use the same definition of "American" that virtually all native speakers do, and many Canadians don't want to be confused with people from the US. Can you please take your prejudice elsewhere?LedRush (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then the vast majority of English speakers need to buy a dictionary or something like that ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.33.103 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The dictionary makes it clear what the primary definition is, and reliable sources make it clear how native English speakers use the language. I think that bitter, non-native English speaking haters with an axe to grind to need to grow up and realize that different languages use different words in different ways, and that they can't shape how other languages are used by petulant and illogical rants.LedRush (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't respond to ad-hominems with ad-hominems. Just point out that her (his?) argument is wrong, which is really all that matters for improving the article. WilyD 13:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made clear that this was to the hypothetical masses not editing WP.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus to close this discussion? I think we've beat this dead horse long enough! - BilCat (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My view is more or less the article as it stands -- "the Americas" is the term I favour as article title and for use throughout the article. "America" deserves a mention as an extant usage -- the current opening sentence does this sufficiently. Prof Wrong (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of consensus I will say this. Either we can all agree that America is a continent that includes both North America and South America and the common English-language usage is WRONG, or we can disagree. I for one do not now and never will again accept the stupid idea — you did read that right — that America can somehow be in North America. Dance around it however you try, that IS the implication of the idiotic idea that America means the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The common English-language usage is illogical, I can accept that, but it cannot be "wrong" because a language is defined by what natives say. In language, there is no such thing as a "common mistake". Prof Wrong (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus, much of the world (either a plurality or a majority) disagrees with the idea that there North and South America are a single continent. Please see continent. However, the entire native English speaking world does agree that the combined continents of North and South America are called the Americas, and not America. So at least that makes our job here very easy, simple and clear cut.LedRush (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific" definition

I think this map nails it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waldseemuller_map_closeup_with_America.jpg Detail of 1507 Waldseemüller map showing the name "America" for the first time. I understand the linguistic discussion, but to me any serious scientific discussion should accept the word "America" for the continent. The issue here is similar to Brits talking about "Europe" as if they weren't part of it. People from the US are free to call their country (founded in 1776) the way they please, especially because it is not a very fortunate name (if one asks my opinion, I'd go for the name "Virginia" since it is the oldest designation for English claims in North America, but it's a little bit too late for a country "rebranding"). So, I don't think someone should sue any US citizen for calling it informally as America. But everyone should be aware that America has been a continent since 1507. Therefore I think it is fair to discuss the usage of the word America in other contexts (ie, referring to the US) but any title or subtitle in a respectful encyclopedia should use America for the continent and United States for the country - simple and clear. (But then, regardless of how much I appreciate it, how respectful is Wikipedia anyway?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• We use "United States" for the country, and "the Americas" for the continents, because those are the standard English language names for them. American (word) is the right place to discuss the historical and modern usage of the word, it's origins, etc. This is a place to discuss the landmass. WilyD 15:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Willy, you do understand the word "America" has been used to designate the continent since 1507 whereas the name of the county (which is not America by the way) only came up 270 years later, right? Sentences like "we use" are not very helpful in my humble opinion when discussing facts from an objective perspective. Needless to say, lots of things "we use" are not technically correct. Thanks for your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Passwiki, you do realize that native english speakers do not even consider North and South America to be one continent, so your entire premise is flawed? Please, read a book, realize that yours is not the only opinion in the world, and read Wikipedia policies on naming. The English language is what it is, and usage of concepts and words from other languages are not instructive to this article.LedRush (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the same arguments can be made for "Mexico" and "Europe". For many within the United Mexican States, plain "Mexico" means the the capital city or the State of Mexico. (In the Yucatan, for example, people complain about "Mexicans" buying up land and driving up prices.) "Europe" often means either continental Europe or the EU. "Australia" may either be the Commonwealth or the continent. People are generally sloppy with their geography. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So the message here is that Wikipedia should be as sloppy as average people when they speak. Namely, it is acceptable to say the UK is not part of Europe, or that Australia is a continent, just to name a few, because lots of people say this. OK, I can take that. Unlike LedRush suggested, I never insinuated mine is the only opinion in the world. My reasoning is that in such a tricky situation a technical decision has to be made. The "continentalists" here are saying: here we have a patent for America as a continent dating back to 1507, what documents can the "nationalists" provide? Or do they have anything against the iconic Waldseemüller map? But all I can see are some aggressive replies which do not address the question. Anyway, I accept that people prefer not to be technical. I'm just uncomfortable with the thought that scientific ideas can be twisted in Wikipedia. The naming of living species, for instance, should be in a very specific form based on latin. The same applies to the name of contents, i.e., feminine and singular - Africa, Antartica, Asia, Europe, Oceania and America. This pattern is not a coincidence but a convention. Using "the Americas" is like saying "the Europes" (Eastern Europe, Southern Europe), "the Africas" (Northern Africa, Subsaharan Africa), "the Asias" (Southeast Asia, Far East Asia, Middle East). But again, I can accept the democratic decision (although I find appalling to use incorrect terminology just because "people use it in English", as if I'm not an anglophone anymore) but I feel obliged to present the logical arguments I believe to be correct. If you have counterarguments, I'd be happy to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You state things that people disagree on as if they are undisputed fact. Please see WP:Continent. America, in english, is not a continent. It can, very, very rarely, refer to the two continents of N. America and S. America. However, it virtually always refers to the country. If you don't like science, that's ok. If you don't understand English, that's ok to. If you don't understand that language changes over time, whatever. Just don't try and force your ignorant world view on this article, against all WP policies.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The grammatical construction "North America + South America = The Americas" appears often in English; Mr. Smith + Mrs. Smith = the Smiths, not Smith. North Carolina + South Carolina = the Carolinas, not Carolina, Upper Canada + Lower Canada = the Canadas, not Canada, whatnot. The difference is that North America is a proper name, while eastern Europe is just a modifier to the proper name, Europe. WilyD 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, let's not be aggressive, guys. And please don't put words in my mouth. Let's try to keep the discussion above the waist. I understand this is a delicate question (unlike some who think that others who disagree with them are just dumb and ignorant). That's why I said it doesn't make sense for an encyclopaedia to discuss usage of words or grammar: "Canada" or "the Canadas"? - that's for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Therefore, WP should be based on scientific facts and I pointed out a very important document. In that map, the term "America" was coined and used ever since, for five centuries, to refer to the continent. The maker even made clear he followed the standard international convention that names of continents are feminine and singular (which is adopted by all Western languages, including English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.122.54.18 (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

While it may come as a surprise to Passwiki, much of Science itself is governed by convention, and there is often a lot of disagreement within Science over these conventions. There are several continental "models", none of which are universally accepted by Science and scientists, thus it is left to convention to define what is or isn't a continent, within certain parameters. There are at least 5 major models: a 4-continent model, 2 with 5, two with 6, and one with 7, and probably other minor ones. The English speaking world (and other groups also) uses the 7-continent model, while Latin America uses one of the 6's. To claim that only the Latin American model is scientifically correct is clearly false and ignorant.

User:Passwiki's only edits to English WP are to this talk page and to Talk:Australia (continent), where the user has tried to argue that the only correct name for Australia (continent) is "Oceanía", as also used in Latin America. I doubt further arguments on the topic will change the user's mind, so unless Passwiki wants to discuss actual changes to the article itself, those not already rejected by the consensus here, we should probably ignore any further responses from the user. - BilCat (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Disqualifying your opponent does not address the real issues. So I should be ignored because I don't agree with you? Yes, I have also contributed to the entry "Australia" because that is a similar mistake. I'm not sure if people accepted it, but again people are just being sloppy. It is incorrect to say New Zealand is part of Australia since they are both separate countries (belonging to Oceania, with tonic on A - OceAnia - not Oceanía. Maybe you assume I speak Spanish but I don't. I am here just to ask why is, for example, North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa) different from North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America): is it also "the Africas"? And I also pointed out the birth certificate of the continent, very clearly stating the introduction of the word "America" for the continent. But instead of counterarguments, all I see is bullying, very very far from a serious discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.122.54.18 (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP talk pages are not forums for discussing a topic - they are only for discussing improvements to the content of the article. Nothing you have said here is anything that has not been discussed here already many times, and rejected as not being the norm for the English language. You've offered no reliable sources that show that the six-continent model is the only one that is accepted scientifically, and continue to argue in favor of using names for the continents that are not the English language norm. That is not to say that all other views of the continents are wrong, but only that it is not what is accepted in English by a majority of published English language sources. You are welcome to believe that English is wrong, but unless you can supply multiple reliable English language sources that state those norms are wrong scientifically, there is nothing left to discuss here. - BilCat (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to 1) discuss dictionary usage of words because WP is not a dictionary; 2) enter the debate of the continents, especially because there are infinite ways of diving the planet. I'll leave this for that particular entry;

For the moment, I am just arguing "America" was a word created specifically to describe the landmass discovery by Columbus, described by Vespucci and represented graphically by Waldseemüller 500 years ago. If you look that impressive map, he describes the methodology used and places "America" in the southern part of the landmass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.122.54.18 (talk)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but English Wikipedia is written in English. You're referring to a map written in latin (and the Latin Wikipedia does use the name "America"). Hebrew Wikipedia uses אמריקה and Vietnamese Wikipedia uses Châu Mỹ, as is appropriate in each language. If you're hoping to discuss the meaning of words without referring to a dictionary ... you're going to have a bad time. WilyD 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one disputes the origin of the word "America", or it's original meaning. I'm glad we can finally found something we both agree on. But the use of the word has changed in English. Deal with it. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Like other scientific names (ie, species, chemicals), the naming of continents is based on Latin. Feminine and sigular: Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and America. All Western languages follow this (because Latin and Greek are no strangers to them). If people use the terminology in an incorrect way, dictionaries must still record the common use. This does not apply to encyclopedias, where scientific facts prevail. If we keep relaxing the boundaries like this, I fear where we will end up. At this point, I can only hope WP is not shielded by biased and influential users who can only say "we use it like this, so it's correct" and "meaning has changed" because this argument does not take us anywhere. I can understand "America" touches an emotional point to the US since people associate it to nationalism. But encyclopedias are not the appropriate place for nationalism and other passions and should not be hijacked by these sentiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.122.54.18 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Like other scientific disciplines, naming conventions are just conventions, and thus don't follow hard and fast rules. Note that Gold ain't at Aurum and Alpha Orionis is the second brightest star in Orion (defying the usual naming convention for stars) and is at Betelgeuse anyways (because that's it's typical English language name, even among professional astronomers). Note that complaining about nationalism in the naming is perhaps the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen, given the nationalist implications for calling the continents America. WilyD 11:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"nationalist implications for calling the continents America."? About other sciences, exactly!: Gold is represented by Au and we do not try to use Go, Gl or Gd, right? The same with continents, especially when it is a simple case of misuse. Since "the Americas" is the correct terminology in English I assume you can you provide lots of references where people say "United States of the Americas", so I'll be waiting for that. --147.122.54.18 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, this talk page is not a forum for discussing whether or not you believe the term "the Americas" should be used, or if it is a "mistake". This page is for discussing how to improve the article. So, what changes would you like to see made to this article, and what reliable published sources, primarily in English, can you cite to support those changes? - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear BilCat, thanks for your cooperation. Sorry I haven't come back before but I was busy this week trying to finish a paper. Because of this I had limited amount of time to gather citations. However, if you ask me about modifications to improve the article, according to what was previously argued, I trust the name of the article should be changed to "America". The use of "the Americas" is welcome in the text since it reflects the common use of this terminology, but not as (sub)titles for being inaccurate. I also support that we should add a disambiguation link to a page where the US (and all the rest) is listed. This should make WP uniform regarding English and other Western languages. This is because I don't think it is correct to put "the Americas" and "the USA" on the same footing with respect to "America". My reasoning is that there is no official equivalence between the country and "America"; "America" is just an informal (relatively common, I agree) way of referring to the lengthy "the United States of America". The same cannot be said about the continent. Even though at the time of the discoveries (1400s-1600s) English wasn't a very common language worldwide (Latin was the standard but one can also find scientific works in German, Dutch, French and political ones in Spanish and Portuguese) some sources may be cited (I also have electronic versions of historic maps but I'd have to upload them some time):

Connecticut Colony Charter of 1662 ("...setled in that parte of the Continent of America called New England..."): http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/colony.shtml ; The Third Virginia Charter ("...lyeing and being in that part of America called Virginia..."): http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/vchart3.shtml ; A Map of America or The New World wherein are introduced All The Known Parts of the Western Hemisphere, 1797: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/19356/A_Map_of_America_or_The_New_World_wherein_are_introduced_All_The_Known/Faden.html ; Atlas, A Map of the Whole Continent of America, Particulary Showing the Brittish Empire, 1764: http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/OL/2598/Map+++Page+1/// ; The continent of America, Its discovery and its baptism: http://books.google.it/books/about/The_continent_of_America.html?id=9r11AAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y ; A map of ye English Empire in the continent of America, 1690: http://digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/newyorkstatemaps/id/37/rec/5 ;

As I said I don't want to discuss on "continents" but I think the wording (found in the second sentence): "Comprising the continents of North America and South America" is incorrect. Firstly because North+South does not make America; rather, America=North+Central+South. And also because we should avoid the concept of "continents" for the moment. I would suggest something like: "Commonly divided into North America, Central America and South America". Perhaps we could also mention at this point the other frequent way of diving it: Anglo-Saxon America, the Caribbean and Latin America.

Starting to get a bit off-topic, it would be interesting to mention that the lands Columbus discovered turned out to be the second largest landmass of the planet, second only to Asia, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think I saw this on the page and it is an appealing fact, in my opinion.

Thanks once more, PassWiki.

--Passwiki (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, a great deal of this appears to be original research. Wikipedia articles are constructed to show what the overwhelming majority of English-language reliable sources say on a subject, not what we as individual editors feel is right. There is also no requirement for Wiki articles to have uniformity across languages. If you are looking for a disambig page there is already one at America (which is itself something of a compromise, rather than having it redirect straight to the United States article).

Of course you are still free to make a requested move if want, but I'm not convinced it has a high chance of success. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lord Cornwallis. Just to clarify, I'm not a historian so I'm not technically licensed to perform original research. In fact, I'm only doing what I was asked to, namely to provide sources. Therefore, I'm not citing any work which I could have personal/financial/etc motivations, but I'm only bringing to light some sound references. I also did not claim any guidance from WP to make it uniform across languages, I just brought that up because I think it's a plus - especially considering the relevance of English as an international languages nowadays. About the disambiguation I suggested because I was asked to propose concrete contributions to WP and based on my reasoning: "America" meaning "the USA" is not technically precise, whereas meaning "the Americas" is entirely correct, and WP should stick to exactitude.

PS: I noticed I read "HI OTHMAN AND ELIS AND OTHER COMPUTER PEOPLE 1998" on top of the map in the main box. If it's not a bug with my browser, can someone please do something about it? Also, there is a particular coordinate point, 19°O'O"N, 96°O'O"W, which maybe needs some explanation (I don't see why it is any special).

--Passwiki (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you slightly misunderstood what I was saying. If you follow the policies I've linked, they outline the construction and naming of wikipedia articles. We can't personally argue for the composition of articles using our own opinions. The articles are drawn up to reflect what reliable sources say. However strongly we feel about a subject, unless we can demonstrate that the majority of Eng-lang, secondary sources state a thing it doesn't form a basis for an article. However eloquently we might argue, unless we can demonstrate this is a mainstream view in reliable sources it is relatively pointless.

I find your comment ""America" meaning "the USA" is not technically precise, whereas meaning "the Americas" is entirely correct, and WP should stick to exactitude. " a bit strange, as it seems to endorse the status quo. America does not currently redirect to the US, instead it is a disambig. Americas, a name which you seem to acknowledge is the overwhelming Eng-lang term for the landmass, is the title of the article about that landmass. This arrangement is in itself something of a compromise between the two conflicting views and acknowledgement of the relative ambiguity of the term America. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So to sum up, something I already said: we are discussing if WP should use a terminology which is more popular or one that is technically correct. My whole point is that WP is not Wiktionary and should base on science, not on common use. Otherwise encyclopaedias loose their meaning if it should always say something we believe is correct; we wouldn't have to look for any information there and we wouldn't learn anything new; we would only reinforce our point of views regardless of science. I have presented many facts/sources to show that technically "America" is a continent. You all seem to agree with them, but prefer to argue we should use "Americas" because "native English speakers" use it. I cannot prove "Americas" is less frequent than "America" but one cannot prove the opposite either, so this argument is weak. I hope I can make it clear I'm not using my opinion but reliable sources. According to WP instructions the title should follow: Recognizability → "...setled in that parte of the Continent of America called New England..."; Naturalness → 'America' was discovered by Columbus'; Precision→ 1507 map and naming of the continent, ie the coining of the word "America" (or "A Map of America or The New World wherein are introduced All The Known Parts of the Western Hemisphere, 1797") against only informal/unofficial use of "America" as a country; Conciseness"→N/A; Consistency → Inexistence of "the Africas", "the Asias", the "Europes" or "the Oceanias", inexistence of logic loopholes like 'America is in North America' and all other Western languages following rules to name continents as feminine singular;147.122.55.62 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, the usage we're already employing is both the most popular usage and the "technically correct" one (if such a concept exists in English, which is more or less doesn't). So there's no need to worry. Using a term that's antiquated, ambiguous, and imprecise would only make the article less accurate and more confusing. It would be a disservice to our readership. WilyD 15:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"antiquated, ambiguous, and imprecise" ?? It might sound antiquated to you, but it's not. Eliminating ambiguity and imprecision is my whole point. If something is ambiguous and imprecise is the name of the country but I wouldn't make such a statement. In English, the United States of America are a country in the continent of America. People shouldn't get as sloppy as they speak when editing an encyclopaedia.147.122.55.62 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is antiquated, and sources have already been presented to show that. In English, the United States is a country on the continent of North America is the most precise, formal language one can employ. WilyD 17:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's funny but I'm the only one who has to present sources in this discussion, my sources are disregarded and other contributors only mention "there are sources" to support them. You can say Babylon is also antiquated but I disagree; whenever we have to talk about that idea we have to use that word. I agree the US is in North America (so are Canada and Mexico) as I agree India is in Southeast Asia. But this does not change the fact the US is in America and India is in Asia.2.192.106.158 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But in English, America isn't a continent because the scientific norm in all English speaking countries (and perhaps a few others) is that North America and South America are separate countries. Please read WP:Continent. Also, of course, the sources indicate that "america" almost exclusively refers to the country. Of course, everyone already knows this, so I fear I am just feeding trolls.LedRush (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We often use archaic names when talking about archaic things, that's neither here nor there; the article already notes that the name America was used for the region historically - but this article isn't about a historical topic that no longer exists. We use Babylon to discuss the historical city-state, but we don't try to rename Iraq Babylon. WilyD 09:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Passwiki - again I think you are overlooking the basis of Wikipedia's naming and contents policy. It is not for us as editors to argue what we personally believe things should be called. To clarify, you don't seem to be contesting that "Americas" is common usage both popularly or academically for the landmass?

You've produced several sources but all except one are primary documents which are not reliable sources. The other is the title of a book published in 1894. Quite significantly all of these sources date from a hundred years or more ago. You've yet to provide any evidence that majority current usage is "America". As somebody proposing a radical change to the status quo the emphasis is on you to provide clear evidence in reliable sources supporting this. Your arguments using logic constitute original research which aren't admissible as evidence. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am here to prove with historical documents that "America" is a continent, whether people like it or not. Because of the name of the country (rather unfortunate but it is not "America") use has changed. But usage is for dictionaries. Encyclopedias must stick to facts. No one here finds counterarguments and only claim "people use it (wrong)". This is very weak reasoning for a respectable encyclopaedia and I believe editors should leave aside any emotions and be more open to focus on the facts. After all, I expect editors to form an impartial and heterogeneous group. Passwiki (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:Continent? Do you just not understand it? Do you just not care? Perhaps you shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia if you either don't understand English or don't want to abide by the principles of the project? If you do, that's great. We always need editors who are capable of reading and writing in English and understand the project's core beliefs. But you're simply demonstrating none of those qualities now.LedRush (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I agree the definition of continent is not settled. And I betrayed myself when I said I wouldn't go into that discussion. So, allow me to reformulate what I just said. There is no ambiguity for an encyclopedia to use "America" because it is certainly NOT a country and proofs are abundant that "America" refers to the "New World" or "Western Hemisphere" (rather than "a continent" as I used before). PS: You don't gain anything in this discussion by being aggressive.Passwiki (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia doesn't use America to refer to a country. WilyD 15:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So, one can easily remove the artificial "Americas" in favour of "America" and include in this page a disambiguation link to other uses.Passwiki (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

With all respect you don't seem to have been reading the various policies we have linked to about the contents/naming of articles. For the last time - article titles/contents are decided by consulting WP:reliable sources. Unless you can use these to demonstrate what you claim, then you can argue here till you are blue in the face and it won't make any difference. I'll say again "Historical documents" (ie. primary sources) are not reliable sources. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to WP policies on article title "America" passes all criteria, as I showed above. Please stop being hateful and bully those who do not agree with what you impose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe anything I've said to you has been uncivil. If I have I apologise. But notwithstanding this, I honestly believe you are either not reading or misunderstanding the Wikipedia policies. Please supply the reliable sources you feel support the changes you are arguing for. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so that I know what you are looking for, can you give some examples to support your point of view, namely Americas?2.192.10.0 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I could give you a raft of individual sources, but it seems easier to show them in bloc. On Google Books, if you type the words in, is a clear illustration of popular academic usage. "Americas" is used exclusively and overwhelmingly for the landmasss while "America" is used predominantly (but not exclusively) to mean the United States. The ambiguity of the latter word is reflected on wikipedia by the fact that America does not redirect directly to the US, but is a disambigutation page. I hope that makes it slightly clearer for you. I'd emphasise again I'm not intrinsically hostile to your view, I just can't see any evidence for it in reliable sources. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So I have a 1507 iconic map for which the US government paid millions of dollars and is in permanent exhibition at the Congress Library in Washington and you say this is not a reliable source but Google is. I'm a bit confused I must say.Passwiki (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, google books itself is not the reliable source. It is the reliable, secondary sources it links to which are. With regard to the 1507 map: to quote from the guidlines "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why I asked you for specific examples so that I know what to look for. Because I'm tired of presenting arguments which are just disregarded with usual shallow phrases. Using Google for instance the hits for terms like US,United States, United States of America, America range from ~ 2500000000 to ~ 20000000000 whereas Americas gives much less, ~500000000. I can reverse the game and ask you to prove that Americas passes the criteria WP specified. And if there are problems with the original map, there are loads of secondary references talking about that very famous document, one can easily locate them. But I'm sure you won't be happy with that and instead will move the problem somewhere else - feels like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Passwiki (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• As the editor proposing a radical change to the status quo the burden of proof is on you to provide modern, reliable sources supporting the change. If you want an example of a reliable source: Pritchard, James. In Search of Empire. The French in the Americas, 1670-1730. University of Cambridge Press, 2004. As I've said if you want a greater illustration of common usage in reliable sources type "Americas" or "America" into Google Books and scan through the results.

• "And if there are problems with the original map, there are loads of secondary references talking about that very famous document" I've no doubt there are countless reliable sources that refer to map's existence. If you can provide some which actively support your interpretation than please do so. Otherwise the argument is original research. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose this reference, e.g. : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VUcaAQAAIAAJ&q=Waldseemüller&dq=Waldseemüller&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G-eoUJ3uH9GN4gSPzICYBw&redir_esc=y. The title and the cover are pretty clear, in my opinion. But I'm sure there'll be some kind of problem with this source. Am I right? Passwiki (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know exactly what the book specifically argues, as we've already demonstrated "America" is somewhat ambigous. Does the book actually state that the modern, common name of the landmass is "America"? Also it is not just a question of providing a single source. You need to demonstrate this is overwhelming usage. As I've said before, you are always free to make a requested move but it will likely have a very poor chance of suceeding. I'm sorry if this feels frustrating for you, but these are basic wikipedia guidlines/policies without which there would be total chaos. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The book, of course, uses the term "the Americas" to refer to the present day landmass, and America when talking about the historical narrative (i.e., more or less the consensus narrative here). WilyD 08:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, proving one or the other is more used is not possible. Neither I can prove, nor can you. The book might not say this or the other is the common use, this is for dictionaries not technical books (like and encyclopaedia or the one you are not satisfied with). This is discussion linguistics should have, not WP. I am saying "America" satisfies the WP criteria (above) perfectly". No ambiguity: UnitedStatesOfAmerica=country, America=NewWorld. I don't find it frustrating; I'm bumping into people all the time who insist Australia is a continent, Pluto is a planet and that humans came form Adam&Eve, just to name a few. No matter how common these uses are, they are wrong. The denial of evidences, by hiding behind infinite rules, is reaching a level where the reputation and credibility of editors here are at risk (by the way, how are the editors chosen?). I just wanted to help. But it makes one think twice when one has to renew standing orders to contribute to WP project. 147.122.54.18 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly you are describing a phenomena on Wikipedia known as Truth. Wikipedia articles are not constructed according to what you or I believe to be true, but by majority usage in reliable sources. I've linked numerous times to the reliable sources article which illusrates what are considered RS.
• Editors are not chosen they are self-selecting. Anybody can edit wikipedia.
• Without these policies/guidlines wikipedia would be a free-for-all of people adding what they personally felt to be true.
• In summary, if you hope to have the article title moved from Americas to America you need to present a sufficient number of reliable sources to convince editors that this in fact its common name. The emphasis is on you to demonstrate that Americas is not the most common name. A glance at Google Books suggests you'll have a tough time achieving this. I hope that makes it clearer, becuase it still feels as though there is some misunderstanding/miscommunication here. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we agree we are not computing which word is more used (also because this is very difficult, to say the least)? Besides, in WP's guidelines I found no need to use the most common terminology. Otherwise we would have to include Pluto in the list of planets because that's what most people use. And it would be funny to explain that in all languages planet means something but in "English" (maybe American English in your case) it means something else, if that's the stick we choose. Like football and the continents. I think "America" satisfies all criteria imposed by WP and I'm not using the "phenomena of truth". It passes the criteria more satisfactorily than the rather artificial (but understandable) "Americas", as I have already shown. But you only say "this is not the most used", which I proved not to be accurate by using Google (which you used to like). My point is, in this case there is a big asymmetry between those who defend "America" and "Americas", namely the latter was created to describe the exact content of this page almost 300 years before the creation of the US. This patent favours "America". Unless you can prove "Americas" was created first. This is the reason why "Americas" fail to pass some of WP's criteria for titles. I don't think one or the other is true but an executive decision needs to be made here, and that is to use "America" in the title. At the moment, there is no entry in the English WP for "America". Isn't that something we need to address? It does not feel like anyone can edit WP when I see a number of people suggesting the modification and a small group of the same people saying no. The misunderstanding seems to be on the side of those who have problems distinguishing an encyclopaedia from a dictionary. 147.122.54.18 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

With regard to your points I've posted numerous links to policy/guidlines explaining how wikipedia articles are named. If you've read them and believe that your proposal accords with them then feel free to make a requested move, but if you aren't providing reliable sources to demonstrate overwhelming common usage then it will likely fall foul of WP:Snowball. Regards anyway, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll eventually request a move. For the time being, I'm gathering a good amount of evidence. Something easy I just noticed is that the appearance of "America" together with "continent" has 151 000 000 entries, whereas "Americas" with "continent", much less, 98 300 000 hits: an overwhelming common usage. Maybe, for now, I can at least show YOU that my viewpoint is not entirely rubbish.PassWiki 147.122.54.18 (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Two points. a) The google test is notoriously unreliable (by constrast searching on Google books is more useful because it primarily lists reliable sources). b) typing "America" with "continent" just brings up references to North America, South America, Central America, Latin America and so on. Scanning through the first few pages of hits I couldn't find a single reliable source which stated that America is the common name of the landmass.

I'd also add I'm not inherently hostile to your argument. If you could demonstrate it was the common name, I'd willingly support a requested move. I just haven't seen any evidence yet. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! That's exactly my point. Using Google, like someone suggested before in favour of "Americas", is unreliable. As so is any other method. Unless someone is able to read all the production in English language for the last 500 years and check the context, it is impossible to state which term is more common. But still, here we are favouring one of the terms, namely "Americas". Can you demonstrate it is the common name? I just haven't seen any evidence yet. PassWiki.147.122.54.18 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we don't use google to determine the name of articles. We use reliable sources and conensus. The burden is on those proposing alterations to article content/titles to justify this change using RS. If you feel you can do this then make a requested move. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Using America as synonym for USA is like using cloning to describe PCR. It doesn't matter how many people do it, it's still wrong. All those arguments that say "that's how most native English speakers use this word" are ridiculous. Many people use many words incorrectly (PIN number anyone?) but that does NOT make that usage correct. Language rules are NOT democracy and majority can be wrong. Not to mention what was already stated at the beginning of this discussion: most Europeans who speak English as second language would never use America as synonym for USA because in their language America = continent. So if we're going to follow that failed logic that majority of language users decides what is right, then using America instead of USA is still wrong. Anon 77.254.16.61 (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Amerike

As you can seem I added a mention of an alternate etymological theory on the naming of America. Richard Amerike. There is a link to the very same subject on the page of Richard Amerike. However, the edit was reverted, and the references dismissed by another editor. Seeing as there are articles and books published on this matter, the fact that the inclusion of this theory is already on Wikipedia on Richard Amerike's page it seems close to censorship to constantly remove references to it. Regardless of whether one thinks the theory has merit, there is no denying it is a theory on the matter, and it is of interest. The previous time this was discussed did not end in a consensus, the conversation just ended without reaching a conclusion. The only reason, I suspect, that the conversation ended was the editor grew tired of having to explain why this is a valid topic in the face of multiple reverts. If you think this topic has no place here, then I look forward to you removing the same topic from Richard Amerike's page, as it can't be valid in one place and not in another. So, let's open up this can of worms. What are people's opinions?

http://www.amazon.com/Terra-Incognita-True-Story-America/dp/0756792649

http://www.amazon.com/Amerike-Briton-Gave-America-Name/dp/075092909X/ref=pd_sim_b_1/181-2649200-0531115

MrMarmite (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem on Amerike's page is, that most of that content had no reliable sourcing, hence it got removed. This is has nothing to do with censorship but with Wikipedia's goals and sourcing requirement.

The two books you've mention posted might look good at first glance but pose a lot of upon closer inspection. First of all both books are by the same author, who doesn't seem to be an academic expert on the subject (such as a professional university educated historian). Both are published with a very small (non academic) publisher and there seems no serious academic work putting forward the same or a similar thesis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the section on naming is on Amerike's page. Secondly, there is another book, The Columbus Myth: Did Men of Bristol Reach America Before Columbus? by Ian Wilson which addresses the same issue. The publisher of the books I mention is owned by The History Press. If three books don't count as a reference to the fact that this is a theory, and I am not making any judgement on the voracity of the claim, then I feel you are setting the bar a lot higher than most articles on wiki. The fact remains, there is an alternate theory and three books have been written on the matter. I am at a loss as to how you decide that the author is "not an expert on the subject". Perhaps I could ask you how you reached that conclusion. I will await further comments by other editors and re-add my edit if there are not valid objections. I can only assume this will drag over to the resolution mechanism if you remain determined to delete any mention of this theory. MrMarmite (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories seems to be applicable here, as this is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The first part of that sentance is "A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is..." a) this is not about an article, it's about a mention in another article. b) I am not making it more notable than it is, it's almost a foot note at the bottom of the generally accepted theory. Your abstract from the wiki guidelines does not seem applicable here. To be honest, I can see this getting nowhere. I've been editing wiki for 6 year,s and I've better things to do than enter in some edit war. I've made my point, I can't do anything else if even the mention of this theory is erased MrMarmite (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox title

In most cases, the infobox title does and should match the article title and lead title line, bute there are rare exceptions. I believe putting "America" in the infobox title would be too confusing, and goes against the English use of the word. However, if we're going to make an exception, then perhaps we should put "The Americas" in the infobox title. "The" cant' be used in the article per WP:THE, but it is used in the Lead, albeit unbolded.

It's "the Americas", not "The Americas" (unless the "the" begins a sentence); that's the whole point of WP:THE, and that's why the "the" doesn't belong in the infobox title. Deor (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:THE (a guideline) referes primarily to article titles. And, yes, while we do generally use sentence case in in headings, etc., in this case it follows usage. "the Americas" would look a bit silly in the infobox, though I'm open to that as a compromise too. Since you apparantly aren't open to any compromise on this, if would help if you were to specify your preference for "Americas" or "America" in the infobox title, which is the main point of this thread. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "the Americas" is used where there could be confusion with America the country. However, in the context of continents, the New World is unambiguous as "America". There is a similar ambiguity with "Europe" and "Australia", but given the proper context, no dab is necessary. But "Americas" is wrong: it's never called just "Americas", only "America" or "the Americas". The current infobox title is not correct English. I don't see how "America" could possibly be confusing, given the topic of the article and the fact that we have a map right there in the box. And the box title does not need to match the article title. They don't in many state articles, such as Orissa for example, where the article has the common name but the box the official name. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In English, "America" is not a continent, which is the point of this article. Putting "America" in the infobox will confuse the pro "America is a continent" crowd even more than they already are. And actually, it is just called "Americas", but it is rare. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is called "America" in the proper context, and the article provides that context. (I think the pro-"America" crowd has provided plenty of examples of that, even though they've been unable to show it's the common name.) Plain "Americas" sounds ungrammatical to me: I'd like to see an example of its use. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The OED does not have "Americas" apart from titles where the "the" has been dropped for brevity. — kwami (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Or for editorial/style reasons, as we do here. It is probably for brevity here also. The point is, it does occur. - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Telegraphese. We don't do that in our info boxes. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparantly we do! - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently"? The name is not "Americas". That's like calling Leonardo da Vinci just "Vinci". The title could be either "The Americas" or just "America". — kwami (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the application WP:THE to the infobox, yes. It's "telegraphese" even in the article's title. I still think that we can/should put "The Americas" in the infobox title, but there's no consensus here yet to do that. Nor is there one to use "America". - BilCat (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As a reference Carolinas uses "The Carolinas" in the infobox, The Canadas has no infobox, The Dakotas has no infobox, Virginias is a disambiguation page, The Californias has no infobox (and isn't really a parallel anyhow), The Maritimes uses "The Maritimes" in it's infobox - these are all the possible examples I could find. It seems like using "The Americas" (where the capital T denotes the start of text, rather than a proper name) is the precedent, although perhaps it's not super-strong. WilyD 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Americas" seems the best bet. It shouldn't be "America" unless we decide that is the common name and the article is moved. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, the situation is parallel to the many cases like (for example) Art Institute of Chicago; no one speaks of it without "the" before the name, but the "the" is not part of the name and so is not capitalized in running text and is not included in the article title or in the infobox header. (Our articles The Dakotas and The Maritimes should clearly be titled just "Dakotas" and "Maritimes" per WP:THE.) Deor (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

To every rule, there is a common-sense exception. This article should be moved to the Americas by analogy with the Dakotas and the Maritimes: plurals without the article are ungrammatical, whereas singulars without the article merely sound abbreviated. We also have a rule that titles should be in the singular, but we make exceptions where that would cause problems, such as in articles on language families (Bantu languages, with Bantu language a redirect). — kwami (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Norse vs Norwegian

An SPA who sole purpose seems to be change instances of "Norse" to "Norwegian" has went across multiple articles including this one and made said changes. What is the consensus on this change? Anyone else have an opinion? Heiro 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

'Norse' has a broader meaning than 'Norwegian'. Should be reverted where it doesn't mean Norwegian. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Opposes and supports are pretty evenly split; after nearly two months it seems unlikely that a consensus will emerge any time soon. Things may change in the future, but in this case we're obviously not there yet. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Americas → the Americas – per WP:THE and similar articles such as the Carolinas, the Maritimes, the Dakotas, etc. — Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC) kwami (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as a complete misreading of WP:THE. In none of these names is "the" normally capitalized in running prose. The results of a simple Google Books search for "the Americas" will so demonstrate for this particlar case. Deor (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not relevant. The Gambia is not normally capitalized either. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's completely relevant. Point two, right at the top of the page, is "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not." As for "The Gambia", if you examine the talk page of that article, you'll see that people have been discussing the inclusion of "The" in the name since at least 2005; and the argument of most of those arguing for inclusion is that "The" is, in fact, part of the proper name and is capitalized in the running text of sources. Why we have the inconsistent situation of "The" in the title and lowercase "the" in the text of the article, I couldn't say. What's next, "United States" ==> "The United States"? Deor (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, in point two. But there is also a point one. The guideline is either/or, not both. — kwami (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to fail to see the relevance. How exactly does The Americas have "a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article"; and what topic exactly would the separate page for articleless Americas deal with ("the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page")? Deor (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Neutral. There are two conditions in wp:the, only one of which needs to be met. Americas by itself means nothing, unless the United States is being subdivided by various factors, such as this study which defines "eight Americas".[3] There are two continents involved, NA and SA, which form "the Americas". This is the first section of wp:the, while capitalizing the comes in the second section. Apteva (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:THE. "Americas" by itself has no real meaning, and titling the article without the "the" is often confusing to readers from Latin America, as various discussions on this talkpage will demonstrate (not citeable, of course). - BilCat (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia:THE#Other_proper_names -

Besides the above-mentioned cases, "The" is sometimes used at the beginning of some other proper names: Geographic groups like the Carolinas

That's exactly this case. WilyD 09:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder when that was added to WP:THE ... Oh, wait, it was added a couple of weeks ago, by the very editor who proposed this move. What a surprise. Deor (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

kwami did open discussions at WT:THE and WT:MOS, on December 29, 2012, and he made the change to WP:THE about a day later. There was only one response, at the latter talk page, though it was supportive of the change. Granted, kwami probably ought to have posted a note here about the discussions, as I (and Deor I presume!) would have liked to have participated in the discussions (and I don't "stalk" his prolific contributions page!) Of course, his change can still be challenged at those talk pages, but please post here if someone does so. - BilCat (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I asked about this on those pages, was told it was a normal exception and in accord with our naming conventions, made this more explicit in the guideline, posted notice on the talk page that I had made the change, and waited over two weeks for any contrary opinions before acting further. The Carolinas is clearly the established name: It has been stable at that name for nine years, and no-one has ever even requested that it be moved. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus on an out-of-the-way article shouldn't override long-standing style guidelines. (If indeed there can be said to be a local consensus. I see no explicit discussion at all of the name of The Carolinas anywhere on the talk page.) Find me a published book that treats "The Carolinas" with a capital T as a proper name. Deor (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization is irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't in fact check, but policies just document standard practice, and it is the standard practice. Only this article doesn't do it. Everyone group that's looked at it separately has come to the same conclusion, for the obvious reason (we speak English, and know what to title it without thinking about something so obvious). The only real alternative is probably to do something like the the Rosenbergs solution, but that seems clearly worse. WilyD 14:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The standard practice is to follow the WP:AT policy which is not to include "The" eg Hebrides etc. -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support—of course. Tony (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, without the article, the title is nearly unintelligible. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times doesn't think so. Deor (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Economist does the same thing. Apteva (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See The Economist: Americas -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And the Guardian and NBC News and CNN and Al Jazeera and ... —Deor (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose/don't really care. Ultimately it doesn't really matter whether the article under Americas or the The Americas and much of the things surrounding this request appear to me like unproductive bureaucratic nonsense, therefore I somewhat sympathize with Deor's opposition.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Naming convention is pretty clear here; another instance of increasingly galloping pick-and-choseism/WP:ILIKEIT. 84.203.34.169 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. -sche (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If they say "what is Netherlands" I can at least guess they're talking about The Netherlands. But "Americas" means nothing without the "the". Another way of looking at it: the Spanish "Avenida de América" (no article) is always translated as "Avenue of THE Americas". Translation requires putting in the article because "Americas" demands it. If this is violating the letter of WP:THE we must IAR. I don't belive this violates the spirit of WP:THE at all. I agree with older/wiser and the many others who support the move, though I recognize the reasoning behind the opposition, as well. Red Slash 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name is "Americas" (or America), like "United States" and not "The United States".--200.121.135.62 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Sure why not. It makes sense because it's clearer. To not have the "The" could confuse some to thinking it's related to the United States or something. Srsrox (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Have to say I'm more swayed by Doer's argument. "The Americas" doesn't seem to be a proper name. I've scoured quickly through about a dozen RS on the subject and none of them use it - "the Americas" seems to be the usual formula. On the other hand, this debate seems to be going the other way, and I can see why the current arrangment is rather jarring to the eye. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're arguing about capitalization, neither are any of the other names which follow this formula: the Canadas, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, the Maritimes, etc. That's like saying we should move the Gambia because we don't capitalize the "the". — kwami (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What about The Hague? -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What about it? — kwami (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We include "The" in front of "The Hague" because it is part of a proper name, we do not include the in front of the "British Isles" because it is not part of the name. This is part of the Article titles policy and has been so for a very long time. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose it is not the same as the The Hague as "the" before Americas is not usually capitalised. -- PBS (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And what has that to do with the proposal? — kwami (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from the Article titles policy "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name" no evidence has been presented that in this case "the" is part of a proper name -- as it in names like "The Hague" -- If it were then "T" at the start of "the Americas" will usually be capitalised in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:THE lists several common exceptions. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that yes "The Americas" is the common style? But if you mean yes there are common exceptions like book names, then the point is those names commonly have the "T" of the capitalised in reliable sources do most reliable sources use "the Americas" or "The Americas" (as they do with "The Hague")-- PBS (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Hague" is generally capitalized. "The Gambia" is not. This is not determined by capitalization. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is against you on that one on the talk page of the The Gambia article. The point is that whether you agree or not with that consensus, no one involved in the debate argue that the decision was not based on the fact that a significant number of sources including the Gambian government use "The Gambia" in the middle of sentences. Do you have any evidence to present thatthere is a statistically significant number of sources that write "The Americas" in the middle of sentences? -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, because these are not analogous. "The Americas" presents the continent of America as two continents, just as "the Dakotas" presents those as two states. That is the parallel: The Dakotas, the Carolinas, the Canadas, the Americas. The Netherlands and the Philippines are not parallels, because there is no "Netherland" or "Philippine". And the full form of "the Scillies" is Scilly Islands or Isles of Scilly, etc. This move request is in line with the few cases where "A X" and "B X" are combined as "the Xs". We're not talking about wholesale addition of "the" to article titles. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So you you want it as an exception to policy, not because the sources make it so but because you think it would be better. I have given you several other examples and no doubt there are thousands of them. Here are two that your rule would change. The Channel Islands (is a collective name for several island groups/legal entities), as is the British Isles (the largest island being Great Britain). Your argument would lead the the article being at The British Isles. To show that this is not just an island issue consider the article Scottish Marches. That is a collective name for six marches three on both side of the boarder. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand the issue here. The policy includes exceptions; when I asked on the policy talk page, I was told by one of the editors there that this was one of them. And no, Channel Islands and British Isles would not move, because they are not analogous to this case. You have yet to provide an analogous article that would be affected by the move here. — kwami (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How is British Isles not analogous to this case? "I was told by one of the editors" diff please so that others can see exactly what you were told and by whom. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Name the two or more components that are independently called "British Isle" and I'll concede the argument. Might they be "Big British Isle" and "Little British Isle"? Now, if Ireland were called "Little Britain", as opposed to "Great Britain", then yes, I would argue that the article should be called "The Britains" rather than simply "Britains". But it's not, so it's a false analogy.

You can check the talk page yourself. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to provide diff please so that others can see exactly what you were told and by whom. If I knew what to check and when, then I would provide diffs for you, but as I do not know when or where your were you were "told by one of the editors" so please provide diffs. -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The change to the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) was made by kwami using a very small sample of names. The change was made between 30 December 2012 and 18 January 2013. The change that kwami made to the guideline contradict the policy page (see WP:DEFINITE) which states Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown).) If kwami's were to be applied generally it would affect 1000s of articles eg The Philippines, The Leeward Islands, The Isles of Scilly, The Outer Hebrides ("The Philippines" are in the Pacific Ocean". "The Outer Hebrides are Scottish islands"). -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect examples, because we all know that "the Philippines" is really just shorthand for "North Philippine and South Philippine", just as "the Outer Hebrides" is short for "West Outer Hebride and East Outer Hebride" and "the Leeward Islands" is "More Leeward Island and Less Leeward Island". And of course the correct plural is "the Isle of Scillies". — kwami (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How can the plural be the "Isle of Scillies" when there is more than one island?[4] Another example Channel islands. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It can't be. I was just following your logic. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We all know? I certainly don't and frankly I'm wondering whether you make it up as you go, though I might be mistaken. The Outer Hebrides consists of almost 100 islands rather than the "West Outer Hebride" and the "East Outer Hebride" (see List of Outer Hebrides). I'm getting more and more wary of suggested move and the assocaited changed policy as it seems to be partially based on flawed understanding of geographical terms (nvm the grammar for common plural constructions).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Of course there is no "East Outer Hebride". That was just an illustration of PBS's logic. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that explains the nonsensical claims. However I fail see how your sarcastic comment illustrates PBS's logic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why said above, it seems like called bureaucratic nonsense. It is a chance that may be possible but is by no means needed while improving about nothing in reality but using up of lot of time from editors, which could have spent much more productively on real issues/probems.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean the opposition? That we can't move the article because that's not how someone reads the rules, when common sense would say to move it? — kwami (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Common sense suggests no such thing, mostly only your activity over last 2 months does.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Supportively neutral I think kwami's point that it is 'the Americas' rather than Americas is a valid one (cf. Avenue of the Americas). However, usage as just plain America, incorrect though it may be, seems common enough that I'm not sure all this matters. If I were titling it, I'd prefer to see the "the" in front because that's the more accurate and the more common form. But I don't see much point in making a federal case of it. --regentspark (comment) 21:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. While I agree that usually "the" should not be included in article titles, there are exceptions where an article title almost has to have it included as it does not really make sense to do otherwise, such as The Carolinas, The Dakotas, The Three Stooges, The Beatles, and The New York Times. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the examples you give reliable sources capitalise "The" in this case is that usually done? If not then it is not part of the name as it is in the case of The Hague. If it is not part of the name then AT policy recommends not including to include the definite article at the start of an article title. -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In "the Gambia" the 'the' is generally not capitalized, and unlike "The Hague", it can be dropped off altogether as just Gambia. Granted, that case is variable, but we still retain the article at the Gambia. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the stumbling blocks here is WP:RS. If you could provide RS showing widespread common usage I'd be more ready to support it. I admit I haven't done an extensive study, but skimming across books discussing the continent "the Americas" is used pretty universally and therefore I can't see why we shouldn't follow common usage. The titiling of the Gambia article is pretty irrelevant to this article. That article should also be based on common usage which, if it is a proper name, might well differ in style from this one. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It seems hard to find RS for this, so this is just my personal opinion: I don't think I've ever seen "Americas" without article, and it felt very odd to me when I saw it on {{Continents of the world‎}}. I do think this decision matters: It has to be decided somehow to resolve conflicts such as the current edit war on that template. — Sebastian 18:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom - this case seems analogous to the Gambia, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, etc. Cheers, Rai•me 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How is is analogous to the Gambia where the argument is over the issue of whether the definitive article is part of the name? Just because some articles do not follow the widely accepted article title policy WP:DEFINITE. Is not a compelling reason for this one to do so. Can you present any evidence to show that "The" is usually part of the name as it is in The Hague? -- PBS (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. North & South America, collectively, are always referred to with a "the" in "the Americas" (although I usually hear synonymous "the new world"). This is because there is no ambiguity as to who or what the Americas are. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

British Isles are always referred to as the British Isles! The Wikipedia policy is quite clear (WP:DEFINITE) "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name or otherwise change the meaning." -- PBS (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Move British Isles to "The British Isles" too.

There is a weak "or otherwise change the meaning" in these cases. "Americas" with a "the" suggests possible other Americas. "British Isles" would be any "Isles" that belong to the British. Americas may not be confusing because we assume that all readers are already familiar with the number of Americas, and British Isles may not be confusing because every reader knows that "British isles" is clearly different to "British Isles".

Either that weak argument or the policy or wrong. If a "the" always precedes the name, then a "the" should always precede the name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy is not wrong, because of disambiguation, just about every proper name on Wikipedia could include "the" in front of it, but the policy is not to do this. If you think that the policy should be changed the place to discuss it is at Wikipedia talk:article titles. It may be that a discussion at there would lead to a change in policy (but I doubt it as this is a long standing convention and 100,000 of article titles are derived from it). To move this page to "The Americas", would be a contrary to the WP:AT policy, because you are saying that we should include "the" in the article title even if it is not part of the name. For example there has been only one battle of Waterloo we do not name it "The Battle of Waterloo" to indicate it is the only one or even the most important (eg the Battle of Leipzig). As to "we assume that all readers are already familiar", this is covered in the policy as well see Recognisability (WP:CRITERIA) and negates the argument about including "the" in this case. We include "the" in front of Crown because "the Crown" is a clear change in the meaning of crown no matter how expert the reader is in British constitutional theory. -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of case covers 100,000 articles. I do think that this case should be moved because as it is it looks stupid, and we shouldn't do stupid things because there is a rule. Rules should be helpful, not binding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "it looks stupid" the ultimate in subjective reasons? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Does subjective mean bad? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not inherently, but linguistically "subjective reason" usually equals "bad reason" on WP since it's more than likely there are other users who disagree on the subjective opinion, and if it is 100% subjective there is no objective basis that justifies the preference. In the context of deletion, I believe that's what WP:ILIKEIT is all about. Of course, it's possible to have subjective preferences that have some objective bases, and 100% pure subjective reasons are probably more rare than most users assume. From what I have read above, your opinion is not 100% subjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think backlogged RMs is quite a collection of really small ambiguous questions. Is Americas singular or plural? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if that was a rhetorical question or if you are asking for my opinion on it. I suppose it could be plural if you assume that there are two separate continents, North America and South America. But it could also be a singular "whole", especially if you consider it as one continent. If I had to say in this context, I would opt for singular, but I can see both sides. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see it as singular, and I wonder if my issue is the single plural like this need the "the". But the lede reads in the plural, except for the singular synonym America. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think either of the criteria under WP:THE are met. "Americas" means exactly the same thing as "The Americas" and the "The" would never be capitalized in prose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple months ago I added the de-facto exception of cases like this, based on the stable history of the Carolinas, the Dakotas, etc, but was reverted because of the debate history here. So using policy to argue the article should not be moved is a Catch-22, because policy cannot be updated until it's moved. So the question is not what does policy say, but which title do we want? — kwami (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You're only talking about examples provided under the guideline. The principles of the guideline itself have not changed, and in my opinion they dictate no rename in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline as it currently stands does not dictate a change. Rather, common usage dictates an exception to the guideline. That's the whole point! — kwami (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, for precisely the reasons set out in the guideline. Otherwise it would be "The United States", "The Cook Islands", "The Solomon Islands", and hundreds of others. And I don't think that's the way to go for an encyclopedia. Hence the guideline WP:THE. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because there aren't two countries name "United State". That's what many of the people here don't seem to understand. "The United States" is not analogous to "the Carolinas", so there would be no reason to move it or the hundreds of others. In fact, this is the only article I can think of that would be affected. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes any difference whatsoever and why that becomes the defining factor. "Americas" means exactly the same thing as "the Americas", at least to me (and my dictionary) it does. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE: "the" is not normally capitalized in running prose. The "the" is neither part of an official title nor necessary to the meaning of the term. This is reflected in the usage of other encyclopedias and references noted in the article here. —  AjaxSmack  03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The key question, as users such as GOF and AjaxSmack have pointed out, is whether "the" would be capitalized in running prose, not whether it would always be used in general (we can probably all agree on the latter). The Dakotas and the Carolinas seem like helpful examples, but tellingly, the nominator didn't even capitalize when referring to them—which is correct, because that's just not general practice. (I'm not familiar enough with The Maritimes.) These aren't like The Hague. Rather than follow the example they set, against WP:THE, I think we ought to change them. But that may depend on the outcome here. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

We all know that "the" isn't capitalized. That isn't the point. The point is that common usage dictates an exception to the guideline, one that the editors at the guideline itself acknowledge. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It decidedly is the point for editors who support implementing the principles of WP:THE. That may not be your top priority, but that doesn't mean it's not for other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the point because no-one disagrees about it. You can't have a debate when everyone is on the same side. You might think this article should not be an exception to THE, or you might think that it should be, like analogous articles have been treated, and like editors at THE have stated it should be. But it's silly to say that it shouldn't be an exception because that would make it an exception. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Like editors at THE have stated it should be"—link, please? I'm having difficulty finding that. Deor (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it was at the MOS (took a while to find it again). I asked about names like the Carolinas,[5] and was told that they were a normal exception to the rule.[6] I then made the change to the policy to make that clear,[7] and announced on the talk page that I had made the change.[8] There were no objections, and it was stable for like that for several weeks. It's only when I brought it up here that PBS changed the policy back[9] so as to not support a move of this article (and who BTW had not read enough of what he reverted to understand it). — kwami (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes users only find out about changes to guidelines when specific cases arise. I don't see anything anomalous about that: not all editors can (or choose to) closely monitor everything. Until this discussion, I certainly didn't know that you had changed the guideline, but now that I know that you changed it, I too oppose the change. And just because everyone agrees on a particular point doesn't mean that that point cannot be—for a particular editor—the deciding factor on a particular controversy. It appears that you have a different deciding factor, and that's OK too. But no one can force editors to recognize any one particular point as the deciding factor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it's said that we have "the Gambia" and "the Bahamas", even though "Gambia" and "Bahamas" would work just as well and we don't capitalize the "the", because some people do capitalize it. Well, some people capitalize the "the" in "The Americas" too.[10] — kwami (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if you have read WP:AT. You have given a link to https://www.facebook.com/CircuitofTheAmericas?ref=stream do you consider that to be a link to a reliable source? In the debates over "The Gambia" (see here) and "The Bahamas" (here) revolved around the use in reliable sources (in both case one of these was the Government of the state itself). Do you have any examples of reliable sources that capitalise the definitive article in this case. For example Wikipedia has a template called {{Pan-Americanism}} do any of those organisations capitalise the definitive article anywhere other than at the start of a sentence for "The Americas"? There is a guidance in naming conventions (use English) which is used to help decide on whether article titles should use accent marks or disregard them which can be used here to help determine this issue of adding the definitive article to this title:

In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed.

If this guidance is used, what are your sources for proposing to title this article "The Americas"? -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Lguipontes (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE. Seeing as, in this case, "the" would not be capitalised in running prose it should not be part of the title. Jenks24 (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

personal question.

I wanted to ask this question so personal, my question is, throughout Latin America "from Mexico to Patagonia" in books, schools, TV shows, etc, all that have to do with the continents, they think that "America" is a continent formed of North America and South America, now, who is telling the truth? what they say in Latin America, or what it says here, in English-speaking countries, is considered North America as a continent, and South America a continent, but not in all Latin American countries, and I think many countries the world think that "America" is a continent then, who to believe? Who tells the truth? thanks 186.95.4.66 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I Hope this helps:

--190.233.230.214 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both are "true". See the multiple lengthy discussions above. - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bilcat's correct, this is neither right nor wrong. It is simply a question of luinguistic usage (English vs Spanish) and the two wikipedias rightly reflect common usage in their own languages. This has been discussed at great length already on these talk pages. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, but still, it seems strange that a country say that just exist two continents "North and South" and 20 other countries say there is only one, I think it should be the same, as if in america say that there are only three planets in the solar system, while in Latin America say 4, is a totally different thing should be the same for all. 190.78.181.71 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC) men

There isn't any requirement for wikipedia articles to be the same in different languages. The current arrangement reflects common usage amongst English-speakers (not just the US but also Britain, Canada etc.). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And indeed, there are more than a dozen anglophone countries in the Americas. But the essential truth of the matter is that the definition of continent is somewhat arbitrary anyhow (indeed, both models tell us that Europe and Asia are different continents, when anyone with a map can plainly see Europe and Asia are on the same continent. The easiest way to think of it is that the Americas are a pair of continents, while América is one continente. WilyD 08:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

North America is just East Laurasia, while South America is a separate continent that joined up a few million years ago with the emergence of Panama. And the name "America" was first applied to South America anyway. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, for {{Continents of the world}}, the continent should be labeled just "America". The plural reflects the Anglo conception of them being two continents, while that entry in the template is specifically for the Latin POV that they are a single continent. Normally I would agree that English usage demands the plural, but this is the exception. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that this is a reasonable exception because it's clear beyond any doubt in that case that "America" doesn't refer to the USA. — Sebastian 09:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Think about what language we're writing in and then think about why the Anglo (and a majority of the world) conception of two continents is used.LedRush (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. We're writing in English, and so normally speak of "the Americas" as two continents. However, occasionally we have reason to refer to America as one continent, which a number of English-language sources do, and in such cases, well, it's a continent. We shouldn't say two when we mean one, and vice versa. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me the English language reliable sources that speak of "America" as the North and South American continents as of today (meaning not from 1492-1700)? If there are any, I am sure they are outnumbered by the other RSs by over 1000-1.LedRush (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are seriously outnumbered, because the normal conception in the anglo world is that they are two continents. But what does it matter if a source is describing 1492? We still read about Columbus.

Here are a few that present them as a single continent:

"and whereas the said company has failed to maintain regular telegraph communication between this Island and the continent of America: and whereas the electric cable connecting this Island with the continent of America is, and for several months now last past; has been defective, and no telegraph communication has in consequence been maintained. Be it therefore enacted, by the Lieutenent Governor, Council and Assembly ..."

(The Acts of the General Assembly of Prince Edward Island, passed April 17, 1862)

"Whether people teach the idea of seven continents or simply four, they must come together and form a single global currency for the benefit of all as for me there's only four continents, which are the Continent of America, the Continent of Afro-Euro-Asia, the Continent of Antarctica and the Continent of Oceania ..."

(The Verbum of Hermes, José Báez, 2012)

"The first Muslims to arrive on the continent of America were Africans brought through the slave trade."

(Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, Keller, Ruether, & Cantlon, 2006)

"The Founding Fathers used the term, "United States of America" to define our nation. Why the word "America" was included is uncertain—perhaps to locate this new country geographically in the continent of America."

(The Rotarian, June 1993)

"This", explained the woman, as if she were addressing a child, "is Green Lake, Wisconsin, on the continent of America"

(Mars is Heaven!, Ray Bradbury, 1948)

"The first people to explore the continent of America were the Native Americans."

(A Parents' Guide For Children's Questions, Benito Casados, 2010)

"The continent of America, named for Amerigo Vespucci"

(America: the Book, Jon Stewart, 2004)

"Columbus continued his voyages and discoveries, and in 1498 landed on the continent of America at the mouth of the great river Oronoco"

(Reuben and Rachel, Susanna Rowson, 2009)

""The day will soon come when commercial airplanes will be flying over the continent of America at the rate of four hundred miles per hour.""

(Howard Hughes: Hell's Angel, Darwin Porter, 2005, quote from Hughes)

In my Google Books search on the template talk page, 95% of sources from the last 20 year speak of "the continent of America" in the singular. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

First, many of your sources don't meet the criteria of being in modern usage. Second, your limited search is ridiculously biased. Look to see whether RSs name North and South America as separate continents or one. The Americas is not a name for geologists, it is a name for the majority of lands in the western hemisphere.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course they name them as separate continents. What does that have to do with anything? And how is restricting sources to the last 20 years not "modern usage"? — kwami (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, seeing as people here are saying they are one continent and that needs to be reflected here, it seems extremely important. And if a guy 20 years ago says that in 1800 the place was known as "x", that's not modern usage.LedRush (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to explain yourself more clearly. I don't know what that means. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion is a little confused. Does anyone dispute the assertions:

• When the Americas are referred to as a single continent, it is called "America"
• When the Americas are referred to as a pair of continents, they are called "the Americas"

? The only real point I expect we're in dispute about is whether the first case happens ~1% of the time and should be given a bit of weight, or ~0.0001% of the time and entirely neglected. WilyD 09:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd add a third assertion: When we refer to it as two continents, we refer to it as two continents. When we refer to it as one continent, we refer to it as one continent. Although that may seem to be a tautology, it appears to be what LedRush is objecting to. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that when the Americas are being considered in English as a single continent (that ~1% of the time), your sources have convinced me--they're probably typically referred to as America. I wouldn't say all the time, but yeah, seems logical enough. Great sources. Good work, I'm impressed! Red Slash 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In English, the two continents are considered "America" only in reference to how people referred to the western hemisphere in the past. The English term is "the Americas". And, in English, they are two separate continents. Also, in a vast majority of the world, they are two separate continents (see WP:Continent).LedRush (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not true, as the refs I have posted demonstrate. Anyway, it's irrelevant to the point. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you hide the refs that prove your point?LedRush (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you don't bother to read things before you respond to them. I'll know not to consider your opinion next time. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure selecting 9 refs out of the millions of usages of the word "America" in the English languge can make a point about anything. Anyway, six of the refs are referring to the discovery and settlement of the Americas, one is from 1862, and one is from person who only recongnizes 4 continents. While the books are recent publications, what they refer to in 7 out of the 9 cases are not from the past 20 years at all, but quotes of historical events or people. If these refs are representative of "95% of sources from the last 20 year speak of "the continent of America" in the singular", then them the majority of these publications don't reflect contemporary usage at all, but historical usage. - BilCat (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter which era people are discussing, or how many continents they recognize. When people speak of the Americas as a single continent, then 95% of the time they use the singular. "The continent of America". That's all. I'm simply disproving the odd claim that people use the plural when they mean the singular. That does happen, actually ("the continent of Americas"), but is marginal. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In over 99% of English language references, there is a South America and a North America. When people refer to the landmass of the western hemisphere, they talk about "the Americas". America almost never ever means the landmass in the western hemisphere.LedRush (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Did anyone say anything different? — kwami (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing your point.LedRush (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My point was to counter the claim made by an editor (I forget now who), that when speaking of the Americas as a single continent, it is normal in English to use the plural – that is, "the continent of the Americas" or "the continent of Americas". I think it's pretty clear that the opposite is true: when people intend a singular meaning, they use the singular; my GBooks count found that to be the case 95% of the time. Of course, most of the time English speakers refer to NA and SA as two separate continents, and refer to them together as "the Americas", but the question is how to refer to America as a single continent in those occasions where people do so, for example in a historical, Native American, or Latin context. It's a bit like arguing that we can't refer to "Eurasia" on Wikipedia because 99% of the time people refer to Europe and Asia as two separate continents – okay, fine, but what about when they don't? We do sometimes report on POVs that Eurasia is a single continent or that America is a single continent (or Afro-Eurasia, or Laurasia, etc.). — kwami (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia not give undue weight to minority views. In this case most of the examples kwami has given can be misunderstood because they man be read as usage with abbreviation. For example

• "This", explained the woman, as if she were addressing a child, "is Green Lake, Wisconsin, on the continent of [North] America"
• "The first people to explore the continent of [North] America were the Native Americans."

It is the same with Europe. When one reads "Europe" in an article one has to be carefully consider what the author means, because Europe is frequently used as an abbreviation of a full term. An author may mean the "European Union", or they may mean the "continental land mass of Europe", or they may mean "Western Europe" (eg from the World at War series Stephen Ambrose comments that 1945 witnessed an invasion of an exhausted Europe by Russian and American armies, "thus ensuring that no European nation actually wins the European Civil War".) In this case while the term America may be used singularly and unusually to mean the "[continental land mass of] America" -- as in the "[continental land mas of] Eurasia" -- it could be being used to as an abbreviation to mean "[North America]" or the "[United States...]". In this case I suggest that the use of America in the first sentence of the lead is relegated to a footnote, as it is confusing for non-native speakers, who may not realises that the most common use in English is as an abbreviation for the "United States of America". -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we often need to disambiguate. However, it's often obvious from context what we mean – say in a geology article, where we speak of the American landmass having a narrow constriction at the Isthmus of Panama, or a historical article, with the first European landing on the continent of America being at the mouth of the Orinoco, or a geography article, where we acknowledge that most of Latin America considers NA and SA to be a single continent, America, or some Native American organization that has branches North and South and sees it the same way. In such cases, we want to call it "America" in the singular, because that's the POV that we're reporting, though a footnote for those who don't get it wouldn't be a problem. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

According to most reliable America is not one continent so "continent of America" is ambiguous at best and is is certainly not useful in geology articles where plate tectonics are more important than archaic imprecise meanings. "with the first European landing on the continent of America being at the mouth of the Orinoco" No need there are better more precise ways to mention "Columbus" See for example the Christopher Columbus article. As to "we want to call it 'America' in the singular, because that's the POV that we're reporting" only in quotes or italics otherwise it is potentially confusing for an English monoglot. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait. Just a comment. Continent is a cultural rather than scientific entity, so I think mention to plates has no point whatsoever. One word: Eurasia. Europe is divided from Asia BY A RIVER, and such division shifted a lot with the centuries! We were first settled by Amerindians. We were all colonized by European powers, who killed/enslaved/explorated/knowingly transmitted disease to/assimilated those Indigenous peoples (it doesn't really matter if, despite being descendants of much posterior immigrants, North Americans identify with the colonizers since not all of the continent of North America has this worldview). We all had uprisings and revolutions to free our peoples from them. We all have developed our identities as based on the construction of a so-called New World. It doesn't make any bit of historic sense to divide a continent in the man-built Panama Canal. In the same reasoning, well, English speakers are no less confused than Portuguese speakers who still think calling the USA America has clear imperialistic hints (no, not me, I'm neither an ignorant nor a xenophobe, despite the fact I don't really know why people do it), and put the Caribbean into Central America because they see it as purely geographical divisions of a continent (since it is neither north nor south of America, it must be center...) because it has the same and unique shared history. Even considering that they speak mostly creolized French or English or both on one side and Spanish on the other, with rather dissimilar histories and demographies, it won't make sense. Now you got to explain to those people that Mexico and Brazil aren't on the same continent. And it should matter if it does not makes sense to millions of people if you are trying to make the point that it has anything to do with a more scientifically correct view. Lguipontes (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

USA=#1

YES WE ARE