Jump to content

Talk:Americas

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kozushi (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 31 October 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Strange, common sense and reliable English-language resources all strongly disagree. So weird.LedRush (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
By the same 'logic' that New York (city) is in New York (county) which is in New York (state)... and that typical everyday speakers will refer to New York, and expect the listener to figure out which one they mean. Math is logical. English is not math. Wikipedia is not the place for righting great wrongs... though sometimes I wish it was. Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Read that over, and then remind yourself that your opinion about the worth of various dictionaries, or about the illogical nature of everyday English, does not in fact belong in wikipedia, until and unless a reliable third-party source has documented the notability of your opinions, by publishing them in a scientific journal or airing them on the nightly news. Sorry. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, further demonstrating the lack of logic here, New York (county) is in New York (city), not vice versa. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Of course, the True New Yorker would not count all the various lesser boroughs as being in NYC proper... sometimes not even New York State... which just goes to hammer home the point, which is that English and logic are even more widely separated than geography and geometry, especially when nationalism (or provincialism) and truthiness are added to the mixture. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What exactly do I purport?--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That your examples are relevant to my question in more than a tangential way.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Examples for current/modern usage were given above already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Without reliable sources to back this up, this does not inform the discussion.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources are already there -- several respected dictionaries. Prof Wrong (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made clear that this was to the hypothetical masses not editing WP.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"America"

The usage of "America" is up for discussion, see talk:America -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help editing related article

Request for help adding NPOV content to topically-related article -- paragraph already written and cites already found, but contentious. This is over at the article about the cartographer mentioned in the Etymology & Naming section of Americas. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Martin_Waldseemüller#Reviving_an_old_edit_war_over_the_notability_of_H.Res.287
Talk:Martin_Waldseemüller#Discussion_of_the_notability_of_H.Res.287.2C_with_reliable_citations_related_thereto
Talk:Martin_Waldseemüller#New_Copy_of_.27America.27s_Birth_Certificate.27_Found_in_Munich_-_July_2012

Definition of the topic

Fat&Happy, the articleS about Eurasia and Afro-Eurasia doesn't define their respective topics as separate "lands", but as a combined landmass. With respect to your edit summary that "try standard English-language usage, which is to say they are two continents, just as Europe, Asia, and Africa are three even though naturally joined", I shall remind you that articles in Wikipedia are expected to fairly represent all points of view and not be written from the perspective one subset of the world's population. The current wording is severely lacking in those respects, and I'm trying to provide a more neutral wording that accurately describes the topic for what the concept means.

If you don't like the version I have put together, it would better suit all of us that you write a version that you consider that fairly represents all the points of view involved, instead of reverting to one that has been disputed. Diego (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm finding that Eurasia, which is largely free of any regional naming controversy, is a model to follow w.r.t. neutrality. Right in the first paragraph it provides three useful sources discussing without much fuss the various ways that "continent" is used to divide land masses by different criteria, providing diverse results. It will be interesting to use them to frame the concept and redact a definition that takes all these issues in consideration.Diego (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I've warned Diego Moya for 3RR - he is past that now. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm now waiting for discussion to occur with users Deor, BilCat, and Fat&Happy. Diego (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a doubt

Greetings Friends. I have a doubt. (This is only my opinion). I think that South America isn't a continent. There's no difference about the ethnicity, fauna, flora, the climate, and Central America is the landmass that it's joining both. I live in Argentina and I didn't know nothing about the "2 american continents", Can someone explain me why the english speaking countries use that model?, That's the doubt. I'll be really grateful if someone answer me. Goodbye and thanks for your attention. --JuliánDelRusso (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find answers to some of your questions in the Continent article. That article explains that there are differing continent models. I don't think it goes into why the differing continent models are used by certain groups, and perhaps no one really knows. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it so much, thanks for your answer! --JuliánDelRusso (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. (You're welcome.) - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Gives the Impression the Americas have no Indigenous Character

One would think by reading this article that the Indigenous people left no trace on Latin American or other cultures in the Americas. If this were true, then it would make for a very neat narrative - Europeans "largely replace" the indigenous peoples, and we have a transplanted Europe -voila! But, it's just not true. Only about 700,000 Spaniards left Spain during the whole 300 year colonial period for the American colonies. Miscegenation was the rule both genetically and culturally. We see this in food, music, customs, folk beliefs, dress etc, even in the influence on the Spanish and other Indo-European languages spoken here in the Americas. There are even still many people who speak the indigenous languages as first languages, like Quechua, Mayan, Nahuatl etc. The concept of "Mestizaje" or "Mestizo-ness" is at the heart of most of the Latin American countries. I happen to know that Mexico defines their country in its constitution as the evolution and change of its local Aboriginal tribes over time. The USA officially recognizes in an act of congress that their system of government is partly based on the Iroquoian Great Law. I don't know how to word these facts about cultural and genetic mixing best to introduce them into this article, but it really must be done. Even the term "Latin America" entails a double identity - both "Latin" (i.e. "Iberian") and "American" (i.e. "Indigenous.")Kozushi (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ethnology section could definitely use an overhaul. Do you want to take a stab at it? Fitnr (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kozushi already tried to add such material, but as it was uncited, and dubious in most places, I reverted his changes. Especially dubious is his clam about the meaning of "Latin America", which is not even hinted at in Latin America#Etymology and definitions. In addition, African influence is far stronger in some countries, particularly in the United States and the Caribbean, which his/her additions completely ignored.

Well, if you read this same article in Spanish, you'll find exactly the things I am talking about. The Spanish page is actually very precise about which countries have more indigenous character than others. I read Spanish, French and Korean which is a big help sometimes in getting ideas for English-language pages. If the Spanish page for this topic emphasizes the Aboriginal character of the Americas, and in particularly for Latin America, then it's probably not out of place for the English page to do likewise. You realize that Mexico was declared "Mestizo" long ago - let alone Peru where most people still speak Quechua (Incan.) Pablo Neruda, the Argentinian poet lauds his "Araucanian" (native) ancestors. You simply cannot explain away the Aboriginal character of these continents. Well said about the Caribbean and the USA - this should be included also. The Aboriginal contribution is still very important to both though. National Geographic did a nice article a few years back about Aboriginal culture and DNA in Cuba - the conclusion is that there is lots of it there. Anyhow - I'm just registering my gentle protest to this aspect of the article, which is here at least on the "talk" page, and perhaps someone with more expertise in this area could gently help the reader understand such things as why Mexicans are still eating tamales and tacos so long after the Spanish conquest, and their flag has a bird on a cactus - not a scene from Don Quixote.Kozushi (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I should add that one of the two national sports of Canada is Lacrosse, which is the "sacred ball game" of the Iroquoians and Algonquins. Ask yourself too, how can "Hispanic" indicate a "visible minority" if they are virtually 100% of pure Iberian descent? I was in Houston this spring, and I guarantee you the people there sure were not of "Iberian" descent! Precious few! The Amerindian genotype is very strong in the Americas. Even in my case, I live 20 minutes from a big Indian Reserve, and that community is often in the news, and is very well known, indeed it's legendary. A number of my professors at university were Aboriginal. The Spanish teacher at the local high school identifies herself ethnically as "Aztec." I'm just not seeing this "wipeout" theory regarding the aboriginals as holding any water. Even in Britain, are the "aboriginal" Welsh all gone? Here in the Americas the legacy is clear.Kozushi (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americas&oldid=579554598"