Talk:Americas

Contradicting Information Among Wikipedias

The following edit to Americas was reverted because I referenced other Wikipedias:

The Americas, or America, are the lands of the Western hemisphere or New World, most commonly said to be comprising the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions, although less often said to be a single continent.

Granted, while "America's" status as either a continent with subcontinents, two separate continents, or a double-continent with different regions (as is described by the German encyclopedia) is rather controversial, if the different Wikipedias are not providing the same content, there is a genuine conflict as far as the subject matter is concerned. I am posting a Template:Contradict-other Contradict-other Template on the article until this issue is resolved. TheUnixGeek (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The immediate problem with your edit is that it is not allowed to use other wikipedia articles as references. Find reliable sources that support the point and then there may be something to talk about. As for the {{Contradict-other}} tag, usage of a term in other languages is not entirely relevant to usage in English. It is unsurprising, even to be expected, that usage of the same or cognate terms will differ among various languages. The tag should be removed. older ≠ wiser 10:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a very long and protracted conversation (now located in archive 3 of this page) that lead to the current phrasing of the lead. It should not be changed without discussion here first as it represents a hard-won compromise. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason as yet to re-open this debate: prevailing reckonings in English are paramount in, this, an English resource and are yet balanced, and reckonings in other languages are equitably dealt with elsewhere in the article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the Western Hemisphere in the lead

I have read some of the extensive discussion regarding the lead, but would like to take specific issue with the phrase are the lands of the Western hemisphere. The first the is implies that the lands of the Western Hemisphere are exclusively the Americas/America and nowhere else, whilst, without redefining either of Western or Hemisphere, there are many nations partly or wholly in the Western Hemisphere, including some sizeable ones like Ireland, Iceland, Morocco, Portugal, and some others which are largely in the (e.g. UK and Spain, see Western Hemisphere for the full list). Additionally, as to claims that English speakers all use the term to mean the America. I am a native speaker of English, lived my entire life in the Western Hemisphere and simultaneously within the European Union, as have a good 65 odd other million people.

Therefore, can we please change the lead to something like

are lands in the Western Hemisphere

or move the phrase so it reads

They make up the vast majority of land mass in the Western Hemisphere.

I will not take any action on this for a few days but the phrase is factually flawed at worst and unnecessarily ambiguous at best Gamma2delta (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. The Western Hemisphere article makes it quite clear in the lead paragraph what is meant. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine anyone mistakenly believing Ireland, Portugal etc. are in the Western Hemisphere, as the term is commonly used in English. CAVincent (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I should add, given the amount of work that has gone into every iota of the top of this article, it would take a very compelling concern to change at this point, which this is not. --CAVincent (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Western Hemisphere, also Western hemisphere[1] or western hemisphere,[2] is a geographical term for the half of the Earth that lies west of the Prime Meridian (which crosses Greenwich in London, England, United Kingdom), the other half being the eastern hemisphere.

is the first sentence lead of the Western Hemisphere article, clearly demonstrating that's not the case. In the English speaking bits of North America in may well commonly refer to the Americas, though I wouldn't personally know, but it is certainly not in many other parts of the world. Ireland is in the western hemisphere unless you resort to regionally specific linguistic differences. My issue is that the phrase adds nothing and actively suggests that all the significant landmass in the Western hemisphere is in the Americas. If you are familiar with the phrase you may understand that it does exclude places which are "technically" in the Western hemisphere (here the word technically is NOT pejorative). So if you're American (from the Americas), if it's that common, you don't need to be told in the lead. And if you're not, then it's confusing as it stands.

I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the lead, hence commenting on the talk page but the use of the definitive article means that the sentence means all the significant landmass in the Western hemisphere is in the Americas

I don't have any problem with any of the follows

·known as the lands of the Western hemisphere (similarly to The Yangtze is sometimes referred to as the Golden Waterway. in Yangtze River.)

·(also the lands of the Western hemisphere)

·are lands of the Western hemisphere

·are the largest landmass in the Western hemisphere

I appreciate the first two may require the bolding (word?) of New World, but that clearly falls in the Yangtze category too

Given wikipedia's nature dealing in fact, the ambiguity of the statement and that wikipedia already has a system of using bold for names in the lead (sometimes official, sometimes local or colloquial) means that it should be bold if used with the definitive. I think the article being misleading when a simple solution presents itself is pretty compelling, after all what are the harms of emboldening the phrases?

P.S. Amount of work is not necessarily a sign of perfection, or best possible compromise Gamma2delta (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, and as the Western Hemisphere article appears to state, the Western Hemisphere begins at Greenwich and includes everything to the west of it which would include Ireland, Portugal, the UK and so on - all of which are not in the Americas. Therefore I would support a change to are lands in the Western Hemisphere, which doesn't change the emphasis of the current text but does make it more precise. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that change also. Night w (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. And I know that I'm not mistaken when I say Ireland and Portugal are in the Western Hemisphere. Hemispheres are defined segments of the globe, not geographic regions--the definition is not open to interpretation. Rennell435 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading this conversation from long ago the change is either not implemented or has been changed back. As stated before, the americas are not the only land in the western hemisphere, (western hemisphere as defined by the times atlas next to me) and so the current wording is incorrect. Change to "are lands in the Western Hemisphere" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It was changed back in this diff by User:Bosonic dressing. I've reverted to the consensual version. Night w (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Serranilla & Bajo Nuevo

I removed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank from the list of Territories and Dependencies. If they're to be added to the list, the editor must first verify beyond doubt that they are in fact controlled by whatever state--and have that sourced claim accepted on the Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank pages first. Rennell435 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

the Two Americas

As a disambiguous page, there should be reference to the 'Two Americas' concerning the 'Americas' in relation to the continent article don't you think, as there is a growing interest in this subject?

for examaple: "The Prussian junction of the Two Americas by the King of Prussia." and John Edwards book, as well as speaches by U.S. President Obama, and many more references which can be found on the internet and otherwise.

Can we at least investigate this subject?

Thanks!

70.181.249.210 (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Citizens of the nation without a name (USA) are the only people who say they are two continents: They say they are North and South America. But it is a continent that has always been called "America".

Citizens of the nation without a name, use the term "Americas" (plural) to refer to the continent, to avoid confusion between the name they think is the name of their nation (they believe "America" is the behalf of his nation ... jaja, idiots ...) and ignore all of us Americans somo.

Why we are all Americans ???????

Because the continent called America (not divided into North and South America).

To put in a better way, I make these references:

EUROPE: All residents of Europe are known as Europeans, no matter which European country they are:

Residents of Spain, are Spanish, and are European. Residents of Germany are German and are European. Residents of Italy: they are Italians and Europeans. Residents of France are French and are European. Residents of England are English and are European. Residents of Greece are Greek and are European.

And so, all residents of these and all the nations of Europe are Europeans, not inport that nation are, because they are in a continent called Europe.

Similarly the continent about ASIA, AFRICA continent, the continent Oceania (Oceania is called, not "Australia, the continent idiots ...), AND AMERICA.

The citizens of the unnamed nation want to call "America" to their nation, and forget that America is a great continent, divided into sub-continents (North and South America)

But the point is that all residents of the continent America are called Americans.

Whether a person is from Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Brazil, Mexico, the unnamed nation, Canada, etc..

citizens of the nation without a name: not thirsty Americans call themselves just for you, remember that, as stated by the honorable BENEMERITA OF AMERICA,:

"Among individuals as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.225.47 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

All English speakers refer to "the Americas" as two continents, not just AMERICANS. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon culture. If you look at this from a cultural perspective rather than a hate perspective (which is the only thing that motivates you), your ignorant eyes will see that different cultures define the number of continents in different ways. And it's not just the Americas either. There is no agreement about whether or not Europe and Asia are a single continent or whether Europe, Africa, and Asia form a separate continent.

Models
Color-coded map showing the various continents. Similar shades exhibit areas that may be consolidated or subdivided.
7 continents	North America	South America	Antarctica	Africa	Europe	Asia	Australia
6 continents	North America	South America	Antarctica	Africa	Eurasia		Australia
6 continents	America		Antarctica	Africa	Europe	Asia	Australia
5 continents	America		Antarctica	Africa	Eurasia		Australia
4 continents	America		Antarctica	Afro-Eurasia			Australia

The seven-continent model is usually taught in China and most English-speaking countries. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, the former states of the USSR, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, and most parts of Europe including Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Yongbyong38 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Overseas regions and dependencies?

What exactly is the point of the section called "Overseas regions and dependencies"? If it a list of countries which have dependent territories in the Americas (which I think it is) then this needs to be explained. At first glance , it seemed to suggest that the UK and France are part of the Americas. Then I thought it was a list of dependancies in general. I am still not entirely sure what it means. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of places in the Americas that don't fall into the category "Sovereign states", grouped by the nations that control them (note the indentations). It doesn't seem hard to understand to me. Deor (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I added an explanation, mostly copied from what you just posted. Thanks! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some distinction can be made in this section about some of the 'territories' involved. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique are not territories, but simply part of France. That makes them a part of a 'sovereign state', unlike the other territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Song that helped popularize 'America' as a term for U.S.A.

I think the song America the Beautiful should be mentioned in the "Terminology" section on this page, U.S.A. could be seen as the only 'America' by some people, because of this song. I don't know of any sources that might mention this, but I feel that the song has helped 'popularize' this view. According to ABC news [1] it's been considered for the United States' national anthem a few times. (Floppydog66 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Muslims in the United States

U.S. News & World Report: over 5 million Muslims in the United States (2008).[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AYousefzai (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes in "America/Americas"

The editor who wants to change the wording of this section seems to be misreading the online dictionaries he's using. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has as definition 3 of America "the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the West Indies", with the label "also Americas"; Dictionary.com has as definition 4 of America "North and South America, considered together", with the note "also called the Americas"; and Yourdictionary.com has as definition 1 of America "North America, South America, and the West Indies, considered together", with the note "also the Americas". None of these supports the statements that the editor is trying to add with regard to the use of America to refer to all the lands of the Western Hemisphere—to wit, "Most dictionaries do not indicate that this usage is proper" and "English dictionaries generally agree that the term 'America' refers either to the United States or to either North America or South America". I'm therefore reverting his edits again. We've had enough problems with editors pushing the notion that America is the only "correct" term for the topic of this article; we don't need one who maintains that it is a completely incorrect term for the topic. Deor (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming section

There is nothing wrong with WP mentioning some alternatives for the naming. However they need to be put in proper perspective and we should avoid potentially just listing any crackpot theory out there. If an alternative theory (no matter how false it might be) gets enough media traction, then there's a justified reason to mention it. But WP should not create the impression those theories have any academic backing (from the limited what I've seen, neither Carew nor MacDonald theories bear much credibility and neither of them is a "real" historian/historical scholar. John Davies seems to be reputable history scholar, however his cited paper is somewhat of a "welsh patriotism piece" and he just states the naming issue in one line together with other things, without providing any reasoning or evidence at all. The paper by Hutton from geographic journal, which supposedly is cited to support the Carew/Marcou theory, actually rather debunks it (at least judging from abstract/lead being available online)--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In light of the points you've raised, I removed the section. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I do feel, though, that this section should touch a little more on the doubts over the naming. One nagging question is why the name "Vespuccia" was not selected, if naming it after Amerigo Vespucci. Perhaps we could also cautiously at least mention that "It has been suggested that the name may refer to Robert Americk, who backed Cabot's expedition to the mainland in 1497." A good reference or two to published theories (however crackpot!) would be good too. Our role is to reflect modern and changing scholarship, not necessarily to critique it. I've not amended the article yet in case anyone has any further discussion points on this. Mooncow (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide some WP:RS to support the theory, and list your proposed changes here in the talk page, then it can be decided whether to include it. Just remember WP:WEIGHT Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on Richard Amerike includes the observation It has been speculated that "America" is derived from his name, owing to his sponsorship of the voyages to Newfoundland, rather than from Amerigo Vespucci, the explorer and map-maker. and includes two references. How about including essentially the same observation in this article, with the same two references? Mooncow (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Imho there is no nagging question at all, but the vespuccia-thing is merely a pseudo-argument pushed forward by those promoting those fringe theories similar to the (presumably false) Amerigo-Alberico story. We are not going to state here that all names of regions/lands are always picked after last names just because some unreputable source claims so. For something like that we'd need an assessement by in some disinguished scholar or an article in a reputable journal. Precisely because we're supposed to reflect current scholarly opinions only, we probably should not mention those theories here. In my understanding the indian word story has largely been dismissed by scholar for the last 100 years and the Amerike story currently boils down to a somewhat recent book by a journalist. The latter does not constitute scholarship (yet), it becomes scholarship if this idea get picked up, discussed and partially supported by academia, which afaik has not happened (yet).

There is however a separate argument for justifying the mentioning of those 2 alternative theories, which is simply based on their publicity. I.e. if those 2 theories are well known enough and gathered a big enough media reaction to be considered notable, then this provides a rationale to mention them here. Personally though I'm kinda split on that one, they did obviously attract some (smaller) media reaction, but I'm not really convinced that it was/is big enough.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to dab pages

I've now removed the link to a disambiguation page in the lead 3 or 4 times now, and I'm consistently being reverted by an IP user. I'm not getting into an official edit-war over this, so I'll ask for comments from other users. Linking to disambiguation pages within an article's text is not necessary, as it serves no purpose. The editing guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation states:

With very few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.

Furthermore, the sentence containing the ambiguous term actually directs the reader to the other alternative definition, so I'm not seeing the reasons behind keeping the link. Night w (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Literal translations

There is an ongoing edit war over the translation of "Estados Unidos de Norteamérica" (English: United States of North America) and "Norteamericano" (English: North American). As my only edition in this WP:EW stated: I don't understand the rationale for the translation removal.

While it is undoubtely true that there will never be any absolutely literal translation of any sort (anywhere, anyhow), that does not imply that a certain degree of certainty and/or transparency, for certain translations, can be achivied. And this is one such a case, methinks.

Can I ask User:WilyD where is the WP:POV pushing he mentions as a rationale for his repeated removals? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 08:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• There can't be absolutely literal translations, as you note. Notably, although "North America" and "Norteamerica" might be very similar in their component words, the meanings associated with them (notably, the inclusion or exclusion of Mexico and Central America, the linguistic and geographic overloading in English, etc.) are nuanced and varied, and we already have an extended discussion over this (hell, we have an article on the point: American (word) because it's a long, involved discussion. Ham-fisted attempts to reduce it to two or three words do a disservice to the reader (and frankly, add nothing to the paragraph anyways). There's no rationale for inclusion, and it was reverted almost immediately after being introduced - the burden ought to be justification of inclusion here. WilyD 12:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine enough for me. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cities with Muslims

In regard to what could develop into a minor edit war, Mexico City and Torreon were added by a user, edits subsequently removed. This, apparently, was because they were unsourced, however the other cities in the list are also as far as I can tell unsourced (though please do correct me). Furthermore, they are all US cities, so possibly some bias by the editor? Should Mexico City and Torreon be added or the other cities removed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, this page, which is definitely pro-Islamic and so has no reason to downplay the religion's presence in Mexico, says that Torreón has "a small Muslim community", with only 10–20 people who show up for jumu'ah. That hardly seems to place it among "North American cities with high concentrations of Muslims". The presence of significant numbers of Muslims in the other cities listed isn't hard to confirm (and the last time I looked, Toronto isn't a "US city"), but Mexico doesn't even gather census data on non-Christian religions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for some sourcing for the addition. Deor (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed Toronto. Anyway, we have a source against Torreon. If you could source those others, just as the days go on, that would be perfect. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Amerike

I don't want to jump into the middle of anything, but would it be OK to include this sentence at the end of the "Naming" section:'

"Other theories of the origin of the name America have been advanced, such as the idea that the Bristol merchant Richard Amerike was involved, but these have gained little support.

I think the Richard Amerike theory is extremely unlikely, but it is something that you hear, and people might be looking for info on it here. Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that other theories have been advanced probably merits a (referenced) mention here. "Was involved", however, might imply that Amerike himself had something to do with suggesting the name; how about something like "...that the Bristol merchant Richard Amerike may have been the namesake, but..."? Deor (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Afaik there are 2 alternative theories, one being Richad Amerike and the other some mountain range in Nicaragua, of which the indian name sounded like america and might have been picked up by the spaniards. However both theories have currently considered to be fringe and not accepted mainstream academia. It is somewhat tricky whether they should mentioned here or not, because you can make an both directions. One the one hand you could argue they are not really notable enough and we should not push fringe here. But on the other hand shortly mentioning them could be informative to readers as long as the description is not misleading. See also the naming section above for further details--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• america not is only the usa..