Jump to content

Talk:Americas/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Settlement in lede unsupported by body of text in article

Items in the lede do not generally need to be sourced, assuming they summarize statement properly sourced in the body of the article. Unfortunately, the following statement is not supported in the body of the article:

  • "Humans first settled the Americas from Asia between 42,000 and 17,000 years ago. A second migration of Na-Dene speakers followed later from Asia. The subsequent migration of the Inuit into the neoarctic around 3500 BCE completed what is generally regarded as the settlement by the indigenous peoples of the Americas."

The body of the article has sourced content ranging for 20,000 to 40,000 years for the first migration, and 4,500 years for the second migration. No statement is made in the body about what is "generally regarded" by anyone.

The lede needs to agree with the body, or a citation for the discrepancy must be provided. A source is also required for the statement "The subsequent migration of the Inuit into the neoarctic around 3500 BCE completed what is generally regarded as the settlement by the indigenous peoples of the Americas." Scr★pIronIV 18:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"The Americas (also collectively called America)[3][4][5]"

According to the editors OWN CITED LINKS. America is either "North America" or "South America" or "The Americas". America (singular) refers to "The United States of America". So WRONG: NOT also collectively called "America". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.17.95 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not so–see sense 2 here (ref 3). Deor (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—180.214.232.50 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The coordinates in the article seem correct and certainly acceptably imprecise for so large a feature. If you have a particular problem to point out, you'll need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs infinite protection.

Just like USA. Jovito11 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Etymology and naming - paragraphs 2 & 3

As has been repeatedly pointed out by other users in previous edits (see history of the page), the beginning of paragraph 3 ("In some countries of the world") clearly hints to a certain degree of exceptionalism to the notion of America as a continent. I wouldn't call this ethnocentric, and I do believe it is not bad faith. It appears, though, that that many native English-speakers are unaware that the term "America" refers to a unique continent in a large number of countries. In my opinion, this article only reinforces this view instead of educating the native English-speaking audience about the different continent models taught in different parts of the world.

Indeed, sources clearly show that in around 50-60 countries, the continent is known by its original name.

I understand that this is a Wikipedia English article. However, I believe (let me know if you disagree) that the scope of Wikipedia English is not limited to native English-speakers. Should the native English-speaking view be prioritized over what is taught in most countries in the world?

I also understand there is no right or wrong answer to this question, and that the 6/7 continent model is an issue of perspective. I only take issue with the phrasing "in some countries of the world" and I believe it should be changed to "in most countries of the world". Would anyone disagree with this edit? Globe Trotter (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

First, "around 50-60 countries" is not "most" when there are around 200 countries in the world. If this can be cited directly to a reliable source, I wouldn't have a problem replacing "some" with "around 50-60 countries", as that would be far less vague. Second, you also changed the English-language usage to read "some". This is certainly incorrect, as most countries where English is an official language, even if it isn't the largest first language, use the 7-continent model. That's far more countries than just the US and the UK. Other countries use it too, not just those who were former British or US-American colonies either. - BilCat (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
And to answer your question "Should the native English-speaking view be prioritized over what is taught in most countries in the world?", yes, the native speaking population's viewpoint should be prioritized. That is, it should be the one described first on this page and defaulted to on other pages. Other views should certainly be described here (and in some cases other pages), but the basic meaning of any word in any language is that given to it by native speakers. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. For instance, the current version of the 3rd paragraph seems misleading:

In some countries of the world (including France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Greece, and the countries of Latin America)

Except for Greece, all them are Romance/Neo-Latin speaking countries. In reality almost all Europe uses some variation of the term "America" such as "América", "Amérique" or "Amerika". 2601:602:9C01:C923:1A5E:FFF:FE14:B135 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you find a citation that "some" is more correct than "most"? One of the citations clearly explains that's the norm in Europe and Latin America. And also, can you describe since when the new continent in the western hemisphere named America became 2 or 3 continents Rduartemd5 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

To some extent it isn't relevant how many other countries/languages consider there to be a single American continent as the general English conception is that thereare two. See my previous post. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, a careful reading of the Continent article might be helpful to both of the users here who are questioning the "In some countries of the world" wording. Both seem unaware that the 6-continent-1 America model is not used in "most countries of the world", and not even in "most" of Europe. That article explains more about the different continental models used in different countries. In fact, there is another 6-continent model that is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. It has North and South America as 2 separate continents, but combines Europe and Asia as 1 continent, Eurasia. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I still find it odd that people who claim that the Americas are only 1 continent seem so set on seeing Europe, Asia, and Africa as 3. If Panama is enough of a connection to make a single continent then so is Suez, not to mention the 1000s of kilometers of the usually defined Europe-Asia border. I guess the problem is that most people (wherever they are from and which ever continent model they use) are generally taught that "there are (number) continents, and these are them" with no ambiguity or any examination of reasoning behind the number or the list. --Khajidha (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)PS - I don't know when the change to 2 American continents occurred, I only know that it was always presented that way to me (I'm a 43 year old American).--Khajidha (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the discussion. I believe the question pointed out by Rduartemd5 above is enlightening: "can you describe since when the new continent in the western hemisphere named America became 2 or 3 continents[?]". The answer, according to Professor Wigen and Professor Lewis (two historians at Stanford University), is World War II. In other words, until the 1950s, America was predominantly seen as a unique continent, not only in latin-speaking countries (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, etc.) but also in English-speaking ones. Immediately after World War II, however, there was a major shift towards a different notion of the landmass in the English-speaking world, particularly in the United States, where America started to be seen as two separate continents instead. This shift did not seem to happen in the Romance-speaking world. Here's an informative extract of their work (from Chapter 1 of The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography):

Yet not all geographical writers in the early twentieth century viewed continents as given and unproblematic divisions of the globe. In the popular Van Loon's Geography of 1937, for example, the author describes the continental scheme with a light and almost humorous touch, concluding that one might as well use the standard system so long as one remembers its arbitrary foundations. Van Loon viewed the standard arrangement as including five continents: Asia, America, Africa, Europe, and Australia. While it might seem surprising to find North and South America still joined into a single continent in a book published in the United States in 1937, such a notion remained fairly common until World War II. It cannot be coincidental that this idea served American geopolitical designs at the time, which sought both Western Hemispheric domination and disengagement from the "Old World" continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa.

By the 1950s, however, virtually all American geographers had come to insist that the visually distinct landmasses of North and South America deserved separate designations. This was also the period when Antarctica was added to the list, despite its lack of human inhabitants, and when Oceania as a "great division" was replaced by Australia as a continent along with a series of isolated and continentally attached islands. The resulting seven-continent system quickly gained acceptance throughout the United States. In the 1960s, during the heyday of geography's "quantitative revolution," the scheme received a new form of scientific legitimization from a scholar who set out to calculate, through rigorous mathematical equations, the exact number of the world's continents. Interestingly enough, the answer he came up with conformed almost precisely to the conventional list: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania (Australia plus New Zealand), Africa, and Antarctica.

(source: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lewis-myth.html)

It is also fascinating to look at the Google Ngram Viewer for the word "Americas" (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Americas&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CAmericas%3B%2Cc0): it clearly shows that before the two World Wars, the term "Americas" was almost never used in published books - after the spike in the 1940s, however, it became more widely used.

Google Books Ngram Viewer graph of the term "Americas" between 1800 and 2000.
Google Books Ngram Viewer graph of the term "Americas" between 1800 and 2000.

This must briefly be addressed in this Wikipedia article (in the Etymology and Naming section). I am including references to the work of Professors Wigen and Lewis. A more lengthy discussion of the issue will also have to be included in the article Naming of the Americas. Globe Trotter (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Buenos Aires population

I was reviewing the value for pending change when someone else reviewed it. You have 15 million in the table and 13 million in a paragraph. They don't match. You need to figure out which one is right and correct one value. From a pending changes reviewer. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Supercontinent America

As America is a supercontinent (I.e. a contiguous landmass of two or more continents), and listed in the article List of supercontinents as a current supercontinent (along with Afroeurasia), shall it be stated either in the lead or elsewhere in the article? If so, sources to the effect should be plentiful.

Note that the "Present day" table in List of supercontinents is wholly unsourced and that the text of the Supercontinent article does not support the notion that the Americas constitute a supercontinent. In addition, the Afro-Eurasia article says that "it is not a proper supercontinent". If sources stating that the Americas are a supercontinent are "plentiful", perhaps you should dig some up so that we can take a look at them. Deor (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Pan american

The Panamerican gentile should be considered to refer to what is part of the Americas as mentioned by the oxford English dictionary in the main table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.158.8.16 (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking for here. The term Pan-American is discussed Americas#English, and frankly, the article already spends way too much time on terminology. WilyD 06:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2020

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, we remain at an impasse over the proposal. BD2412 T 19:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Americas → The Americas – As per The Californias (recently confirmed in a nearly unanimous RM), The Carolinas, and many many similar titles. WP:CONSISTENCY should control. Red Slash 20:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just a note that this move has been suggested before, in 2013, without gaining consensus. See Talk:Americas/Archive 5#Move request. Deor (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Unlike The Solent the EB article is just at "Americas". The Maritimes is under "Maritime Provinces". In the Californias discussion there were 3 in favour (including the proposer) and 4 against so I'd hardly say "nearly unanimous". Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    That is correct. My apologies. Red Slash 03:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I've never heard of them referred to as "Americas" without the "the".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the current title is ungrammatical gibberish. See The Canadas, The Carolinas, The Dakotas, The Virginias, The Floridas - the current title is an artifact of the usual POV pushers. WilyD 08:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:THE, just as in 2013. Deor (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It is probably wrong to assert that WP:THE can justify opposing this request. It's probably the case that reason #1 to use "The" in a title applies here, although it's mostly about the case where two cases are competing, not the case here where "The Americas" has one meaning, and "Americas" has no meaning at all. But that's more analogous than anything discussed. And, of course, the obvious point about how guidelines acknowledge sometimes you need to think about what you're doing, and not make obviously immensely dumb decisions because a cursory reading of a guideline without thinking about it might support that. This page is only at this title because people are trying to use the title as a soapbox to push the same POV they're always pushing here. The title is a very clear violation of WP:NPOV, which is of course a policy - something we should feel obliged to follow where possible, not a guideline, which is more for when you're not sure of what to do. But here, everyone should be quite sure, which is why in every analogous case where there isn't a POV being pushed, people end up at the obviously correct decision. WilyD 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said in the previous move request, if "Americas" has no meaning at all, someone has clearly failed to notify The New York Times, The Guardian, and other news organizations. Deor (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
How does the current title violate NPOV, exactly? Not sure if I'm missing something obvious here. —Will(B) 13:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, titles should only start with "The" when it would be capitalized in running text. Nome of these would be, so the "the" is purely grammatical, not part of the name.--Khajidha (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was originally planning on closing this as no consensus, but I'd prefer that we get the RM right the first time, so I'm going to relist it to get a more thorough consensus on how to go about moving this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anasazi Culture

In the precolumbian section the article only mentions the civilisations of central and southamerica like the Maya, Aztecs and Inca. Why it doesn´t mention the cultures of the Anasazi and Pueblos or Cahokia in North America? Greetings - Steffen AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.173.20.234 (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • The section is an attempt to summarise in a paragraph or two something like ten thousand years of history - which is then expounded in the article Pre-Columbian era, which itself summarises many hundreds of other articles. It would be completely impossible to even namecheck every pre-1492 society in the Americas in a paragraph or two. Nonetheless, there may be some merit to the suggestion that those listed there aren't terribly representative of the whole. You could take a stab at re-writing it. WilyD 07:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

First European settlement

The article cites Leif Erikson as the first European to settle the Americas, but most definitions of the Americas (such as the one shown on this article's thumbnail) include Greenland, which had already been settled by the time of Erikson. The first settlement on greenland was founded in the 980s by Erik the Red, Leif's father. --AwaweWiki (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, checking, it's read that way for a long time, but you're correct. The best thing to do is to suggest a different phrasing, or just be bold!. WilyD 13:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

why are there redlinks in "countries and territories"? Firestar9990 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Because someone changed the links recently to point to articles on the local languages rather than the main language articles, and didn't know or care that some of the new links pointed to redlinks. BilCat (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There's no reason to think they didn't know or care. Looking at the table, both seem like perfectly sensible redlinks to include. It's possible one or both would be suitable to redirect to a page like Demographics of Territory X#Language or the like; Languages of Saint Martin might redirect sensibly to Collectivity of Saint Martin#Demographics; since it looks like our available information is pretty limited (though reading the section, it seems like there's potentially a lot to say, creating an article might be more sensible). WilyD 05:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Americas?

Americas sounds stupid why not just america or the american continent just like the same article in every other language.Then why not the europes or the asias or the africas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.159.229 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the is the English Wikipedia, the article is written in English. As has been noted, this is a fairly common naming convention in English: The Carolinas, The Canadas, The Dakotas and so forth. Similar constructions exist in Afrikaans and French, at least (though I see the fr article is written by Europeans, and so uses the more colonialist language). WilyD 05:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with WilyD re this is English Wikipedia. But the original posters argument is logically incoherent. In the English speaking world there are two American continents so having a term 'the Americas' is perfectly valid. On the other hand there are not two European, African or Asian continents so using the term 'Europes', 'Africas' and 'Asias' is incoherent. Maybe the misunderstanding is that the original poster is from an area of the world where North and South America is a single continent and therefore the plural term is meaningless but again this is English Wikipedia and North and South America are two continents. No further discussion needed really. Or is there? Robynthehode (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, this article should be moved to The Americas per criterion 1 of WP:THE (and general considerations that we're trying to write an encyclopaedia), but it probably won't happen because too many people try to apply WP:THE completely blind. But the "rename this America" will keep coming up because there's some political view that this should happen. So, it's at least often advocacy, which never goes away. WilyD 08:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Robynthehode's reply is logically incoherent. Nope, in the "English-speaking world" there are not "two Americas", that is false. It depends on the particular researcher and person. Many researchers and people from "the English-speaking world" do employ the term "America" to refer to the whole continent and consider it to be a single unified continent. It is completely false that it is universally accepted in the English-speaking world the subdivision in two continents of America. James343e (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WillyD It has nothing to do with politics but rather with geography. From a purely geographic point of view, most scientists from all over the world do consider it to be a single continent. If anything, it is the other way around, it is attempted to be artificially divided in two continents due to political considerations, to distance the richer North countries (except Mexico) from the poorer South countries. Anyhow, your claim that the consideration of America as a single continent is politically biased is original research and so not a good practice in Wikipedia.James343e (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting this information from, but it's completely false. In the English speaking world, the Americas are invariably treated as two separate continents, and only very rarely referred to as 'America', usually in archaic and/or colonial contexts. The division in English is so strong that I previously quoted my old desktop dictionary, which defined the word continent to demand that there are seven of them (even though any idiot with a map can see Europe and Asia are actually on the same continent). Similarly, there are no scientific contexts in which you'd refer to them as a single continent (though you may draw other divisions, like neo-tropic vs. ne-_arctic, but you wouldn't call either of those things continents).
As far as why people might want to pretend they're a single continent, I don't think that's but obliquely referred to in the article, and this article already spends way, way, way, way, way, way, way too much time on the terminology rather than the landmasses and their properties, partly because of the abundance of editors who are here to soapbox about their dislike of English and/or their love of colonialism, and partly because it's exceedingly difficult to actually find sources about the Americas in English, because North America and South America are almost inevitably treated separately. So I don't think there's any need to discuss such an issue in the article, but there's of course no need for me to be dishonest or play dumb here. The constant and often ham-fisted attempts to move this article "America", give that extremely esoteric usage primacy, or otherwise imply it's somehow the proper usage and the regular usage is wrong is not for scientific or geographical reasons, but for political/soapboxing reasons. Indeed, if you go down to American (word), you'll see the sources there do set it clear that attempts to change the regular English-language usage of America and such is entirely political. WilyD 12:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Willy, you make over-general claims that are not supported by empirical evidence. Contrary to waht you said, it is completely false that in the English-speaking world the Americas are universally treated as two different continents. Here you have two sources in English from the English-speaking world that acknowledge the existence of the 5 continents model and how America may be viewed as a single unified continent:
1. https://www.worldometers.info/geography/continents/
2. https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/continents.htm
It depends on the model, it is not true that America is universally viewed as two separate continents as per the sources and so we must remain neutral and reflect both views.James343e (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, "universally" is more like 99.9999% than 100% (although if you look at Continent you'll see that other models are vanishingly rare, and often inserted as a quasi-original research. America, of course, is understood in English to refer to that country jammed in there between Canada and Mexico.
But, beyond that, neutrality doesn't mean the false balance of equal time, see WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to different positions, we give weight to positions relative to their weight in sources. That we give the use of America to mean the Americas any more than a footnote, or that the Americas may secretly be one continent here is realistically favouring it too heavily, as bad as if we gave half the section on the peopling of the Americas to the Soltrean hypothesis. WilyD 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
And heck, even your second source opens by quoting a dictionary saying the word "continent" specifically denotes there are seven continents, notes seven is the standard, although six with Eurasia gets used sometimes for geography and some science cases. WilyD 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is probably based on the ethnocentric use of the term "America" for only the United States. I have noticed that the term "America" is used as a redirect to the United States, which is totally meaningless, as this is a wrong usage of the term America. America of course refers to all the land mass between the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean. Oddeivind (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not ethnocentric , since it's standard for those of us who aren't American; beyond, I guess, writing English Wikipedia in English being lingistocentric (though, there are many ethnicities of Anglophones). It's the standard usage in all varieties off English, regardless of what some Spanish speaker may do. It's no more wrong than, say fr:Londres. WilyD 09:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the stock phrase "Columbus discovered America" (which is often changed to "Columbus discovered the Americas" today. Or even dropped from usage due to 1) previous Europeans having gotten there earlier and 2) you can't "discover" an inhabited place) , that definition of the word is pretty much unused in English. Most English speakers conceive of there being two continents between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: North America and South America. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The article "American (word)" notes, "In modern English, American generally refers to persons or things related to the United States of America; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1]" I've been living in the US my entire life, and I don't recall ever hearing anyone say "America" in any sense other than "United States of America". I understand why some might consider this to be a misnomer, but by any objective, descriptivist standard, that's what the word means in modern English. Seansinc (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wilson, Kenneth G. (1993). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 27–28. ISBN 0-231-06989-8.

"Americas (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Americas (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Americas (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Language Section

I feel like the section on the languages spoken in the Americas may need to be re-structured Erinius (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Why, and restructured how? BilCat (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
First paragraph of that section is an introduction (that's good), second is basically Spanish-Latam, includes native and creole languages, third paragraph is Anglo-America (and mentions US Spanish), but doesn't include native American or other immigrant languages, fourth is the "other" countries, and then the fifth paragraph is dedicated to creole and immigrant languages. It seems weird to me because that section isn't structured on entirely linguistic or entirely geographical lines. If I were to restructure it, I'd probably go intro-native-European-creole-immigrant. Erinius (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Demonym Pan American

The Pan American name should be added to complete the different options.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:a881:8eb9:fcf9:ba66:896e:84f4 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • If you go down to "Usage" and check the references, you'll see Pan-American is only used as an adjective, not a noun, and demonyms are nouns. The section is a little silly because there really aren't demonyms for people from the Americas in English, but a couple very obscure cases can be sourced, and Pan-American can't. I tried. WilyD 01:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, IP editor. Pan-American describes other things such as organizations, movements and businesses. It is very rarely used as a self-identification. It is not a demonym. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
But in the article it appears as an unambiguous alternative. Also in several dictionaries appears the complement of referring to the membership of the americas— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:a881:8eb9:21a3:e7a1:fba6:d33b (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The Americas "is" or The Americas "are" ?

The first paragraph states "The Americas is a landmass comprising the totality of North and South America." Then a few lines later, "The Americas are home to nearly a billion inhabitants". What is the correct grammatical form here? Are both accepted? The article on The Philippines uses "is" throughout. Joancharmant (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We should probably stick to "are" as the usual English phrasing which treats the two as distinct entities, although often such constructions are down to personal preference and cultural convention. If the article on the Philippines had been written a century ago, it probably would have said "The Philippines are...". CMD (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I boldly fixed it, since I'd call "is" unacceptable and I expect it's a leftover from one of the usual drive-by edits. That said, I'm not terribly familiar with Filipino English, but I'm surprised they use is, which I'd call ungrammatical in any English dialect I'm familiar with (although it depends on detail on usage, I guess. The Canadas starts with saying it "is" the name for the two provinces, then says they were this and that, which is right, I should say. The Cotswolds and The Maritimes both say it "is" an area/region, then switch to a "they are" construction for sentences about them, for example. WilyD 10:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to do with Filipino English in particular. Nowadays, the United States is, whereas once upon a time the United States were. CMD (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"The Philippines" refers to a country as a whole, hence the singular. BilCat (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I still think "the United States is" is bad English, and will never use it (though I won't correct its use either). While it hath without a doubt become accepted, on the other hand there is no argument that can be made that "the Unites States are" is wrong - no case can be made for that whatsoever. Regarding the article subject: the Americas are, America is. Either is completely acceptable in English, though the latter has broader and narrower meanings. Even so, in most cases it is apparent from the context which meaning is meant. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

I, I found an error in the page. Near the beginning of the page. It sed that Christoper Columbus is Spanish but he is born in the Genoa Republic (Today Italy). So I suggest to change Spanish with Genoese or Italian (Like in its own Wikipedia page).

Excuse me if I made Grammar error, I'm not a native English speaker. Luigi97 97 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Columbus was Spanish; it refers to "the Spanish voyages of Christopher Columbus". Since the voyages were indeed sponsored by the monarchs of Spain and set up Spanish settlements, I don't think that the wording of this article needs to be changed. Deor (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

Hello. For clarity and precision, I recommend changing the first sentence in the WP article for The Americas.

Change this:

"The Americas, which are also collectively called America, are a landmass comprising the totality of North and South America."

To This:

"The Americas is a term used to refer to the landmasses of North and South America in plural form, while the entire landmass which includes the North and South parts is called America in its singular form."

The citations currently present in the existing sentence can be reused for this.

The issue that I see with the article's current wording is that Americas is also collectively referring to the North and South parts, and the heart of the matter is referring to the landmasses(es) in plural versus singular form - and that isn't currently stated. Sch3333 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the problems with your proposed wording is that it violates WP:REFERS. Deor (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Isnt the name americas kinda cringe?

Dear community,

i think this article should be deleted, as the name americas is cringe to my tounge. Try saying it out loud and you know what I mean ;) 109.90.185.180 (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't delete articles because someone thinks the name sounds funny. Perhaps the issue is with your tongue. Have you considered having it deleted? ;) BilCat (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please at least study geography and math before writing so many crazy things.

Wikipedia was created for educational purposes, not to satisfy whims.

  1. - There is no such thing as "American English", since English is not the language of the continent. In that case, it could be called United States English.
  2. - AMERICA is a continent divided into North, South and Central.
  3. - 1,000 MILLIONS is NOT the same as 1 billion.
  4. - Repeating a lie many times does not make it come true. The height of ignorance is to force others to believe it.
  5. - etc, etc, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.197.1.202 (talk)
Please sign your posts IP editor. I reformatted your post slightly. To address your points:
  1. Yes there is. You might not think that that's what it should be called, but we simply follow what most reliable sources call it, which is American English. When you convince the rest of the world to call it something else, so will we.
  2. That's not quite correct. Geologically speaking, America is two separate continents, North and South, which connect. It can be divided up in lots of different ways, I'm pretty sure the article discusses this already.
  3. This is discussed at our article about the word Billion. On Wikipedia, the consensus is to use the short form; this is discussed at MOS:BILLION
  4. I agree, but we don't force anyone to believe anything - people are free to read our articles, or not to. Believe what you like.
  5. Right back atcha.
I hope this is helpful. Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
By the IP's own logic, we can't use "United States English", as Mexico is the "United Mexican States". We also can't use "North American English", as North America includes Canada and Mexico among others. So since no one will be happy no matter what we call it, we use what it's actually called in English-speaking countries all over the world, not just the USA. BilCat (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"American English" can mostly be considered to include Canadian English, though, and "North American English" is used explicitly to be include US and Canadian English. Aside from tendencies to spell a few words differently, the two countries are more akin to each other than to any other varieties of English (and the North American dialects that are phonologically most similar to British English are all in the US rather than in Canada anyway). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
From the Oxford Dictionary

America: 1 "used as a name for the United States."

America: 2 (The Americas) a land mass in the western hemisphere...

American: 1 "relating to or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants."

American: 2 "[mass noun] the English language as it is used in the United States; American English."

It is not geography, but just plain English. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to update biggest cities

The last paragraph in the introduction says:

"The Americas are home to nearly a billion inhabitants, two-thirds of whom reside in the United States, Brazil, and Mexico. It is home to eight megacities (metropolitan areas with ten million inhabitants or more): New York City (23.9 million), Metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico (21.2 million), São Paulo (21.2 million), Los Angeles (18.8 million), Buenos Aires (15.6 million), Rio de Janeiro (13.0 million), Bogotá (10.4 million), and Lima (10.1 million)."

That is outdated information, though. São Paulo is currently both the biggest metropolitan area and biggest city in the Americas. You can check on the wikis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_Americas and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_Americas as well as other sources outside of wikipedia.

The fact it still lists New York as the biggest metro area not only is incorrect but seems like intentional lying, since it hasn't been for many years now. We have to fix it Ultrajante (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

adding inter lang wiki

In the languages section of wikipedia page, there i would like to link a small "nepali language wikipedia" page in the "site links list". the given title: ne:महाअमेरिका is not being able to be added because of some "access restictions" that i presume to be done by the admins only. so i request them to add this in the site links page of the respective wikidata. BoyHayHay (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I added it to the language links in Wikidata, so it will now show up among the languages in the article sidebar. Deor (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Americas ??

It should state that America is "Almost Always" known as America not sometimes lol 80.42.207.49 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

America is a continent not a country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3981:AD01:DD80:98CE:C308:65C2 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a point of view common in Latin America countries, as they consider America to be one continent. English speaking countries have a different point of view, as they consider North America and South America, and America usually refers to the country. It's not a matter of right or wrong, but cultural differences. BilCat (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
It's so funny to hear people from the U.S. trying to imply it's only Latin-Americans who consider America a continent, when literally all of Europe (44 countries), most of Africa (38 countries) and 55 out of the 57 countries in America (South/Central/North) consider America to be the name of a continent. Even in the U.S. the combined-America model was the standard for 4 centuries, until it was recently changed (after WW2). Globe Trotter (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I too have had many arguments specifically with South Americans on the naming convention of the continents. Usually they would rather infer that English speakers are uneducated rather than accept that there are different continent models. Wikipedia’s article on continent suggests that the combined America model is less widespread than your numbers say.
“The seven-continent model is usually taught in most English-speaking countries, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and also in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Suriname, and parts of Western Europe.
The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russiaand Eastern Europe.
The six-continent combined-America model is taught in countries that speak Romance languages and Greece.”
Seeing as only Romance language speakers and Greece are mentioned that would be mean most of Europe and Africa would separate the Americas into two. Notscott (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@Scott, even if many countries teach the seven-continent model, across the world the demonym "America" is primarily used to denominate either the entire American continent or the union of South + North America. In any other (non-Romance) European language, the Wikipedia article about the continent is titled "America". Here it is in German (Amerika), Polish (Ameryka), Swedish (Amerika), Danish (Amerika), Norwegian (Amerika), Russian (Америка), Lithuanian (Amerika), Estonian (Ameerika), Latvian (Amerika), Croatian (Amerika). I'm not gonna list the hundreds of other languages (227 translations) this article is translated in, but feel free to visit any of those 227 links as well. Globe Trotter (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Wrong person. @Notscott:, please change your signature immediately.  — Scott • talk 13:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
America isn’t a demonym.
All of those examples you’ve listed use the term America to refer to continents in plural and not a single continent but a single landmass. They do not literally consider America to be the name of a single continent.
German page
“America is a double continent of the earth , consisting of North America (with Central America ) and South America.”
Polish page “part of the world located in the western hemisphere of the Earth , which includes two continents : North America and South America”
Swedish page: “America is divided geographically into North America (with Central America ) and South America.”
Russian page “America is a part of the world that unites two continents, North and South America, as well as nearby islands”
Lithuanian page “America is a landmass between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, usually referred to as the part of the world that consists of two continents: North America and South America.”
Croatian page “America is a collective name for the continents of North America , Central America and South America.” Notscott (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@Globe trotter4 There is no such thing as "the American continent." If we were to start calling North America and South America a single continent then we'd need to start calling Asia and Africa the same continent because the connection between the two is much wider, and we'd definitely need to start calling Europe and Asia the same continent. They are separate continents, and the word "America" for anyone outside (and most inside) Latin America will mean the US. 2600:4041:5D57:2E00:D8BA:550E:BE5F:789C (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
From your IP address it looks like you live in the USA. While it's accurate from the perspective of most people in your country, may I just politely suggest that, unless and until you have travelled widely across both North and South America, it's a bit dangerous making absolute statements about how the language is used. There is a lot of variation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't claiming that only Latin Americans have this view, but Latin Americans are generally the most aggressive about the issue, and understandably so, as they live in the Americas. I'm not sure where you get those numbers from, but they aren't accurate at all. For example, there are more than 2 English speaking countries in the Americas, and they use America to refer to the country, and American to refer to the people. In fact, most Canadians and Americans call the country the United States, while many other countries, even non-English speaking ones, generally refer to the country as "America". I personally visited a country in South America, and when I said that I was from the United States, the response was invariably something like, "Oh, America." BilCat (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that the term America is used for both the country and the continent in most Romance-speaking countries. I never said it wasn't. Toqueville himself calls the U.S. "America" in 1835. My point is that people from the U.S. seem to forget that the entire continent was named America, which was a synonym for "New World", and that only a few centuries later, the U.S. got its name *from* the continent of America, i.e. literally USA = a union of states in the continent of America. Globe Trotter (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Some of us feel strongly about usage of "America", "American", "the Americas", "North America", and "South America" (though we may not all agree on the first two). Those who don't care will naturally have difficulty seeing the point of this discussion, which nevertheless is useful for establishing that the first two should perhaps be avoided by Wikipedia. Regarding Western hemisphere, Wikipedia claims in that article that it refers to the hemisphere west of the Prime meridian, but in this article that it refers to the Americas, which is an obvious inconsistency in Wikipedia. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@BilCat
<< I personally visited a country in South America, and when I said that I was from the United States, the response was invariably something like, "Oh, America." >>
I fail to see why one conversation of one U.S. tourist in South America should determine Wikipedia conventions for naming articles. Globe Trotter (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
It shouldn't, and it isn't, and it wasn't intended to, anymore than than several Latin Americans users posting that "America" shouldn't not ever mean "United States" should determine Wikipedia conventions for naming articles either. It was merely an illustration than even in South America, the "United States" is sometimes called "America". And I did talk to a lot more than one person who said that. BilCat (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't Abya Yala be mentioned in terminology?

for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abya_Yala 37.169.162.231 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What America really is

United States of America, as the name indicates, means that they are states, that are united, in America, that is, the continent, as is unambiguously known in many other languages. "America" is just an U.S.A. abbreviation that ended hijacking the name of the continent.

Nonsensical things like "there is no such thing as "American English"" are being left and discussed, while the simple fact I just mentioned, which obliterates certain delusions, is being removed. This is what happens when keyboard warriors don't have a counter argument, that's why I will keep adding it.

It doesn't matter what it's called in other languages, this is en.wikipedia.org, so it should follow English standards. If it is unambiguous in other langues, it should be reflected in the Wikipedia pages for those languages. JEIhrig (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
You are not understanding what he said. The point is not how it's called in other languages, but that other languages still keep the original meaning of "America" being the whole continent. The rest of the explanation states that, in English, "America" is just an abbreviation that seems to have made it to usual English speech, which is not ideal since now the name U.S.A. itself doesn't make much sense. It's also silly having to call the whole continent "Americas", you start from the continent "America", divide it in South and North America, and proceed to call them "Americas" now that apparently you have two... ludicrous. 84.141.66.29 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
A lot of things about language are ludicrous, but they exist anyway. We have to deal with language as it is spoken, not how we wish it to be. Even now in Europe, "European" is being used to refer to the European Union, not the continent. Eventually, some languages, probably those which do not consider Europe to be a continent, but Eurasia, will use "European" solely to refer to the things and people of the European Union. And some people will also find that to be ludicrous. BilCat (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
In addition to this being the English Wikipedia, it's also not even true that calling the US "American" is peculiar to English or people from the US. As a person from the US myself, who tries to learn a little bit of the local languages everywhere I go, I've heard people in many different countries and languages call my home country "America". It's the same in Arabic, for example, and in India some people only understood "America" and not "US". In fact, the only people who I've seen insist that "America" doesn't mean the US are people from South America, maybe a few from Central America, and a fraction of people who have friends from those places. GeoEvan (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm an Australian who was recently in Spanish speaking Peru. We Australians speak Australian English, and typically not much else. When trying to find the correct tour group in Cusco, I had to join the group with the guide calling out and holding a sign saying Americano. He, of course, spoke English, with a Spanish accent, not anything I would have ever called Americano. I and the Scottish couple I made friends with found this amusing. I would also comment that, in my experience, US as an abbreviation for the USA is very common among those FROM the USA, but not so common among others. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for both those observations. For years, I've been trying to explain to our Latin American readers here that many other countries use "America/American" solely in reference to the United States, to no avail. BilCat (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americas/Archive_8&oldid=1232439032"