Talk:Americas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

America

America---- a continent of the western hemisphere ( also called the Americas) consisting of the two great land masses, North America and South America, joined by the narrow isthmus of Central America, Oxford American Dictionary, college edition.

Having said this, OF America means the United States is part of a continent named AMERICA. The term Americas( generalizing) when used in plural form means all the countries in the western hemisphere are consider America, therefore, all people in this hemisphere are Americans. At the time of early European exploration, the term Americas does not make sense because the western hemisphere( as known for these land masses)had no boundaries ( no countries). So it is correct to think of the whole land masses which include North, Central, South and Caribbean as America.--Rayjohn17 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayjohn17 (talk • contribs)

Repeating the same thing over and over is not the best way of making a point. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll see that similar arguments have been advanced a number of times already without gaining acceptance. Deor (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to correct it. Deor, you and other people have a right to your own opinion. Not to many people accept your ideas also. However, one does not need a college degree to understand of the term America. Your reliable resource is also not accepted. People change meanings of terms for their own use or satisfaction. --Rayjohn17 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet, somehow the reliable sources, and the majority of the English speaking world, have managed to disagree with you. Weird.LedRush (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me something I haven't read from you people; that is all you can say! The English speaking people is not the world; Tell me why they don't agree. I also worked around with English speaking people. Not all of them agree with what you say. In fact, buddy I was in US Navy and some people there do not even know where the word came from , to where it got applied; they even think Columbus arrieved in the US; people here seem to follow with what they hear. If they see or hear something popular they just follow with no clue, kind of ignorance, don't you think so. Instead of just talking for the English speaking people, you educated me in your own thoughts and eduacation what does it really mean America not something you read or some one else said. Show me that I am wrong. It has nothing to do with speaking English or Spanish. Look, put yourself in the other side and just think what it means when somone tells you your not American because you were not born in the US but you know you were born in the continent that has the word America( North, Central and South). And I know at some point, even here in the US people tought as America as been the continent before someone decided to be differrent. Now, they trying to say that Cental America is North America and that is funny. And it has nothing to do with the panama canal. North America begings at isthmus of Mexico and South America begins at the isthmus of Panama. That is why Central America is the isthmus connecting North America an South America. This is a topic I study here in College in the US from an English speaking professor. I was born in Latin america and I know what It is. Tell that to a native born Central American and he will tell you he is a Central American not North American. Anyway I was just surfing the web and came about this page a few days ago. I am not trying to change anything or your beliefs but people here seem to be having a dicussion of the matter so I decided to write my own thoughts. I am not taking nothing way from the US . It's a great country. But people here need to be more down to earth. People here, Most, not all think what they say goes and period. They think they are always correct.--Rayjohn17 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TL:DR. However, English Wikipedia is geared towards encyclopedic content as described by native speakers of English and as evidenced by English language sources. If you disagree with that policy, this is not the place to air your disagreements. And certainly doing so and insulting everyone who disagrees with you is not the way to go.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the US doesn't represent the community native English speakers either as there are Ireland, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa among others. However I agree that issue has been discussed to death and obviously while Americas is non ambiguous, the meaning of America/Americans is ambiguous and in doubt depends on the context. There's also no doubt that it is used as a common synonym of the US. This whole of battle over term is somewhat pointless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

When did I say that the US represents the community of native English speakers? What a weird thing to say.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Question: Are Rayjohn17 and Kmhkmh the same user? Because Kmhkmh suddenly seems to be answering in behalf of Rayjohn (a very recently created account). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not, I don't speak on behalf of anyone but my own. However Rayjohn17 touches upon a point that has at least some merit. WP (as in international encyclopedia in English) should avoid an US centric view of the word America (primarily relying on US American sources rather than sources of the (English speaking) world). There is even an English speaking country in South America (Guyana), though I don't know whether they'd use the term Americans to refer to themselves. However as I've pointed above already, this (and most of the archived discussion) are somewhat pointless, as the ambiguity of the term America and its common use as a synonym for the US are both facts which aren't subject to dispute and the current description in the article's lead is correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's focus is on english language reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, but they are not restriction to US or British publications. Also it is about reliable/reputable sources on the English language, whether those sources themselves are in English is another matter and not always needed. Given a (roughly) equal quality/reliability/notability of 2 sources, the source written in English is preferred, but that's about it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Commonname. LedRush (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that guideline, it has however nothing to do with my posting above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources business is a red herring. The fact is that en.wp is an English-language encyclopedia and thus represents the preponderance of usage in the English language. Usage in other languages is represented in other versions of Wikipedia, as one can see by visiting the interwiki links in the article. Deor (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point above, I was not talking about the usage of the term in other languages, but about non English sources describing the usage of the English term. There are plenty of academic sources on the English language which are not written in English.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia aproach to information is based on cientific knowledge, not politics. America is a continet, that is an elementary school basics, please correct the wrong Americas term is only for US people, the world has a few continents, one of them is America. Pepeleyva (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary, I believe Wikipedia shoud focus on scientific facts rather on usage of words. Even if widely used, an incorrect terminology should not be accepted here. Needless to say, semantic issues are very welcome in a special subsection, but not in the main title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why has the name of the article not been changed to America yet? Rayjohn17 has already made a bulletproof argument for this very early in this section. I fear that the masses control this instead of the intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Which are you?LedRush (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article is controlled by the intelligent masses, as opposed to the unintelligent (ie. dumb) masses. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet, here you are. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind helping the less fortunate. You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, change it to America throughout. According to both logic and the Oxford English dictionary, America means the whole land mass of the western hemisphere including both North and South America. If North and South America are not both parts of America, then what else are they part of??? For Usonians to arrogate (i.e. claim for oneself something that is not properly one's own) the name America to themselves alone, is the very definition of arrogant. It's also completely stupid: how can America be in North America? Then such arrogant and ignorant people actually wonder why others around the world have such a low opinion of them and their country!!!!!!!!!! I suggest they look in the mirror for the answer. No one should give Wikipedia so much as a dime unless this change is made in all articles throughout the English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is written in English, so we use the most common and sensible word choices in English. In general, you'll find that the United States gets labelled the United States, and the Americas get labelled the Americas, with America left as a disambiguation page (although even that's pretty silly, every anglophone knows "America" means "The United States", unless it's qualified in some way"). Referring to the Americas as America in this article is likely to cause a lot of confusion among readers, because they're likely to be unfamiliar with that usage, which is basically archaic. Beyond which, racism is not acceptable - don't engage in it. WilyD 16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you, but some of us Anglophone have learned that the usage of "America" to mean "The United States" is wrong in that it violates the definition of the word in the OED. Though an Anglophone, I have stopped using the word in this incorrect way: I use it according to its' definition, which is the only proper way to use it. I have adopted Usonia in its' place, so to me the nationality of US citizens is Usonian, not American. Since the world properly applies to North and South America combined, it's use to mean the United States is logically improper. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Peruvians, Argentines, etc. are all Americans just as much as Usonians are. What you call the archaic usages is the one that conforms to the definition, so it ought to be revived through the Anglosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, very insightful. After it is revived throughout the Anglosphere, no doubt this article will change too, but until then, wikipedia describes what other sources say, following rather than leading. CMD (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as virtually every English language dictionary disagrees with your analysis, as do the vast majority of english-language reliable sources, you're way off base. Also, I've never seen Usonian to mean a citizen of the US. Your usage, therefore, is wrong. Also, generally you should call a people from a country what they want to be called. To not to so is exceptionally rude. But then again, your prejudice, incivility and ignorance on teh topic prove that you actually intend to be insulting and rude. Oh well....LedRush (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to you. In Latin America they all want to be called Americans and their continent as America. Also see: Usonian and Names_for_United_States_citizens#Alternative_terms. I think "US American" is the best alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.237.185 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no real evidence presented that apart from a handful of advocates, there's any serious usage of "America" to mean "The Americas" among Latin Americans. Given how hateful such usage is to their cultural identity, I'm skeptical that it's a commonplace usage. WilyD 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the following languages seem to use this terminology in the singular, i.e., America, rather than Americas:

http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(Doppelkontinent) http://an.wikipedia.org/wiki/America http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amèrica http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Αμερική http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/América http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameriko http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amérique http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/América http://ia.wikipedia.org/wiki/America http://ie.wikipedia.org/wiki/América http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/America http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/America http://mwl.wikipedia.org/wiki/América http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(continent) http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/América http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameryka http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/América http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/America http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Америка http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americae_(continent) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange choice of name

Why is this page called "Americas"? I mean in plural. Clearly, "America" is the correct name. --Oddeivind (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, no one feed the troll.LedRush (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, Oddeivind has been editing on Wikipedia for many years. For you to label him as a "troll" is a personal attack. Oddeivind, there's a discussion in the thread above about this. Nightw 09:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"less commonly"... What language? An article typed in Italic alphabet should base on Italian wikipedia, innit? Or at least Romance ones like fr., pt., ro. and, especially, by the number, es. By the way, the continent was named FIRST, on Amerigo Vespucci (LOL, Richard Amerike...). Some Hindu-Arabic numerals here as well... Talkwikipedia is an actual encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.145.184 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

English, as this is the English-language WP. The article is about on English-language usage, not what language the alphabet descended from. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't about America, just on its English-language usage? That's an article for the wiktionary then. America is not only an English word, but a name like Richard Amerike or the VIP Columbus (although I'd prefer the continents were called Colombias, and US people Amerikans or Amerikeans). I'm going to search on UK, Australia and so on, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP (talk • contribs)

Although I don't support the ambiguous use of the terms America and American, and usually choose the semantics regarding the whole continent, I think that Colombias wouldn't be the best proposal given that other guys "discovered" it before Columbus (Colón). Following your logics Columbus deserves more credit than Amerigo Vespucci, however the vikings discovered it centuries before Columbus. Hence America (the continent) should be renamed something like Vikingland, or ultimately, "The Continent/Landmass of proto-Asians/Siberians/ who travelled across Bering" or "Another continent inhabited by humans, whose origins as species are essentially African". LOL --Isacdaavid (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your last proposals more, since vikings didn't actually promote a systematical European occupation (IMO that prevented, by the injection of new resources, Ottoman conquest of the whole territory). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.142.134 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• And I'd prefer that Brazil be called "Terra de Santa Cruz", so as to avoid confusion with Brazil nuts. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the Americas, and it's written in English. If you're looking for an article on the word America, there is one. WilyD 14:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not looking for the word American, I'm here because of an article dealing with MY continent. If I was Russian, well, they're mentioned here, like MY country. BTW, no disambiguation for the Russian WP. Guess if an historical name of such importance has been locally corrupted, perhaps it would be more suitable keeping it secret, not publishing worldwide.

In English, your continent is South America or North America. You should read this article; it will help correct a lot of your misinformation.LedRush (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated, so my edit on Russians has to be disconsidered. Have not said my continent is not South America, but consider myself "americano e sul-americano".

And proving why your argument is wrong. Thank you!LedRush (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can be both americano y sul-americano and not American. I'm americano, but not American. They're not the same word, so you can't expect them to mean the same thing. WilyD 05:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not same to Portuguese "América", exactly translatable as "Americas", and Portuguese "meu continente", which means precisely "my continent" (concepts are beyond any tongue IMO, as an example International Sign). For the record only, thinking about Latin America and "centroamericanos" Belize came to mind.

It actually turns out that "continent" and "continente" don't mean the same thing, since the Americas are one "continene" but two "continents". This requirement is quite strong in English, English language dictionaries often include the requirement that there are seven continents in the definition of the word. WilyD 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On strangeness, updates often work for software, just restoring for hardware: [1] x [2].

• On 3 of [3]: have to agree also, I'm a hairy kind of Hs. :) Address already registered, if I was a blue eyed ancestral of mine spanked by Attila or Genghis would maybe care, but live in a democracy (currently), unlike the powder inventors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theckho (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Or one could just use Amerigo Vespucci's own term, Mundus Novus ("New World"). However, such speculations are beyond the scope of this talk page, which is not a forum for discussions of the topic, but for improving the article itself. - BilCat (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

American as a useful demonym, reverts by IP user 200.106.16.11

My edits are each well-explained in their edit summaries, and supported by accepted sources in the article and the MOS. IP user 200.106.16.11 has been simply reverting all of them, with edit summaries which reveal ignorance of the content the sources and disregard of the MOS. I will restore my other supported edits, leave the IP user's re-addition of demonym American in the infobox, and allow the editors to hash through the demonym issue again. – RVJ (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Looks as though your edits are supported by CyberCobra, Deor, and maybe LedRush.

I did move one ref and tagged the claim it had supported; at least from the quote, it looks as though it talks about historical uses of the term, but does not claim that such usage is primarily historical. A couple other refs in the lead did support what they were cited for either. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I support RVJ's edits. Deor (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From your edits, where you appear to be accepting RVJ's edits. If you don't, we need to review this: RVJ was edit warring, even after my warning, but I let it go because he appeared to have the tacit support of a couple other editors. — kwami (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good evening, everyone. This blowup started while I was finishing up my edits. I flipped one (1) edit by the IP user, which was unrelated to what I was working on. I recognised that IP user was reverting, with no edit summary, something which I thought was settled recently on talk. (I was mistaken. What I'd seen played out in a series of edit summaries by other editors with an IP user.)

IP user then retaliated by reverting all of my edits, with summaries which made varying levels of sense, suggesting he'd lost his cool. I rolled that back; Kwamikagami stepped in.

I then explained what I would do here, and proceeded to make a compromise edit. I restored the edits which IP user had reverted in anger, while including that which IP user originally wanted. If there was edit warring, I wasn't doing it.

My two cents on the demonym issue: I'm personally okay with American included as a demonym. Though, if I were editing it, I might do this way:

Demonym: North American | South American, American

...with a reference note attached, briefly qualifying with the issues in English. To support and qualify "American", I'd make note of it in recent English in contexts where there is no confusion with the political demonym (e.g. colonial, archaeological, etc.).

Something better than the M-W source attached would support it. While Merriam-Webster dictionaries order the earliest or dated definitions first, and the modern definitions last, there are no usage notes in the online entry cited. – RVJ (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to fight with you, I think that we can make a deal and I support your idea, but I think that American is more than enough because North American and South American are the demonyms for those specific landmasses and not for America(s), obviously with a reference note attached. Really... American is necessary in this article because we can't ignore the fact that this word is also the demonym for America(s) and not only for the United States, and as I said before... this has sources. [anon - unsigned]

I have to say that makes sense. We don't use "North American" as the demonym for the Americas; rather, we specify whether s.o. is North/Central/South American. That would be better as an explanatory footnote IMO. It's a bit much for the info box. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been several days since we had this discussion and it seems that LedRush is the only one showing opposition against adding the demonym "American" to the infobox. If no one has anything else to comment about the subject, I suggest we should put it back where it was with its corresponding sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.184.178 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The last two edits on the subject were against inclusion, and no one has argued against those on the merits.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who started removing the demonym, and it has always been there, so you're the only one against this.

This is the English Wikipedia, and "American" is not a demonym of "the Americas" in English. We make this clear in the body of the article, which the lede and the infobox are supposed to reflect.LedRush (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OED: American, a. and n.

(əˈmɛrɪkən)

B. n.

1. An American Indian.

2. A native of America of European descent; esp. a citizen of the United States. Now simply, a native or inhabitant of North or South America (often with qualifying word, as Latin American, North American); a citizen of the United States.

MWCD: ¹American ... n (1578)

1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America

2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America

3 : a citizen of the U.S.

It's the only demonym for the Americas. It would seem that the dictionaries at least agree on this. — kwami (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is the problem with this, American has two common meanings. Dictionaries and encyclopaedias are very clear with this:

• An American is someone who is a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States. (noun)

An example of an American is Abraham Lincoln.

• An American is someone who lives in North or South America. (noun)

An example of an American is someone who lives in Brazil.

• American describes a person or thing from the United States of America. (adjective)

An example of some things that are described as American are apple pie and baseball.

• American refers to any person or thing related to, or aboriginal to, North or South America. (adjective)

An example of people that are referred to as American are Inuits.

From: Yourdictionary.com - American Special:Contributions/200.121.197.25 21:59, 21 January 2012

I've reverted back to the pre-edit-war version, and users here should stick to BRD. Here is a good list of sources that state the opposite of what's being added. Rennell435 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, we directly contradict it in the main article. We shouldn't have things in the infobox and lede that are misleading from what we have in the main body.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, restored the demonym per discussion here, w a link to the usage section. Modified that slightly to avoid the contradiction, in line w RS's and the discussion LedRush Rennell linked to. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the most recent entries have argued against usage with evidence, it seems oddto make the change without addressing the concerns.LedRush (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments were over the space of only a few days. I don't see how it matters which ones are the most recent. Also, the finding of the move request was that America should not be used specifically for he US. All the other articles on inhabited continents have demonym entries. It's undeniable that "American" is the demonym of America; the question is how to adequately convey that that is not the primary meaning of the word in modern English. I think a usage note is probably adequate, but I'm sure we could come up with s.t. more explicit if you feel it is needed. — kwami (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a single, English lanaguage RS which states that "American" is a current demonym for "the Americas" (or "America" when that word is used to mean "the Americas"). Maybe they're out there, but I can't find them.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED and MWCD? — kwami (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There's Walker (2001) African roots / American cultures: Africa in the creation of the Americas. (Sometimes this sense is dab'd as "Pan-American" in the book.) That's just an example, of course: if you want a statement, that's what dictionaries are for.

Oh, according to Langley (2005) The Americas in the modern age, the LOC subject definition of "Americans" is "citizens of the United States who are living outside the United States." — kwami (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "I haven't been able to find a single" —did you see the link Rennell gave? Nightw 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes.LedRush (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "American" can refer to people from the Americas. No, that usage isn't nearly as common as referring to people from the USA. And no, neither of those things are going to change based on what Wikipedia says or does not say. I don't see what's hard about this.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"isn't nearly (sic) as common" based on what? Number of native speakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.145.184 (talk)

It "isn't nearly as common" in English. Usage in other languages is irrelevant here, as the article covers English-language usage. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Global Cities Index Updated

Updated GCI, NYC is now number 2 in the GCI. Twobells (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

New Copy of 'America's Birth Certificate' Found in Munich - July 2012

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18700489

http://www.newser.com/story/149448/new-copy-of-americas-birth-certificate-found.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.12.54 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the Waldseemüller map deserves more space. It is too small at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Intro Wording

Okay, let's try a comprimise solution. In particular, the "in current usage" is a sensible qualifier, and addresses a lot of the legitimate complaints (i.e., that there's an archaic sense of the word that refers to the Americas). So that bit's worth keep, but the other bit, which is somewhere between misleading and false (i.e., there's no ambiguity in modern English when someone says "She's from America" - she's from the United States, and even the handful of people who wish that's not what it means aren't confused, just upset) isn't worth keep, since it's basically false, and read into the source, rather than being actual information from the source. WilyD 07:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That was my thought as well: Keep the "in current usage" part and lose the other part. Deor (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And what about the: "though not without some ambiguities or uncertainties"?. You can't drop this part, if you read the Oxford source it says that "The second sense is now primary in English" and "However, the term is open to uncertainties", so we have to consider this part and put something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.149.93 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the revised wording also. Ambiguities are mentioned in the Terminology section, and in the third footnote, and I think that is sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, can we see the full source? (Sorry if it's already been produced).LedRush (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to the English Language is the third footnote in that sentence that I mentioned, currently Footnote #5. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I know it's not a free source that's online, but I meant the full source relating to this issue, not the excerpts currently quoted. Context is important.LedRush (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Also, it's a 20-year-old source, so that needs to be considered. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, my concern is essentially this: this article spends an inordinate amount of space discussing what's essentially a footnote in a dictionary. A litte bit of discussion is probably warrented, but the amount of discussion in Americas#Terminology is remarkably disproportionate to its importance with respect to the topic. The article should be mostly about the history and properties of the Americas (e.g., History, Geology, Geography, Peoples, Culture, Ecology), not a semantic quibble. One and a half of the four intro sentences are about the name, which is fucking nuts. (But does reflect the relative emphasis of the article, which is also fucking nuts.) Probably The Americas (rarely: America) are the lands of the western hemisphere, comprised of North America and South America. - and then straight into there are 900 million people, speaking mostly Spanish, English, and Portuguese but umpteen other languages, populated first by first nations, then colonised by Europe, with subsequent immigration from everywhere, mostly Christians, but with substantial minorities of other religions (including no religion at all), Ecology dictated by a north-south alignment that streachs from the high arctic through equatorial tropics to the sub-antarctic, formed a few million years ago when the continents bumped into each other, maybe Great American Interchange - sharing a lot of species with Eurasia via the Bering interchange (whatever it's called), etc. - the important bits of information. WilyD 08:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of that discussion can be sourced out in separate article with will be linked in this one. In fact such an article exists already but it is currently underutilized.

And since we are at it, the line "Canadians prefer to be called Americans" looks rather questionable to me. I can't check the source, but even a single source would state that, there might be more sources required. At first glance this line looks rather ludicrous to me, I never met Canadian for which that was case. In fact in particular since 9/11 the situations is rather the other way around, (US-)Americans calling themselves Canadians while traveling abroad. --Kmhkmh (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Where're you getting that line about Canadians? The only line I see about what Canadians like to be called says Canadians generally resent being called Americans. Which is putting it mildly, eh? WilyD 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I simply misread that line (reading preferred rather than referred).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I don't see a compromise here, I only see that you edited this article the way you liked more. However I don't dislike these edits, but I don't think the part "rarely: America" is the best choice. You don't see that in a dictionary but "or", "also known as", "also called" and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.117.39 (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My preferred version of the page wouldn't mention that there's an esoteric use of "America" to mean the Americas that's been deprecated for 200 years at all. It'd be given due emphasis as a footnote in the subpage on terminology. It's conciser to say "(rarely America)"!, rather than devote a sentence or two in the lede to an issue that's incredibly minor relative to the scope, trying to balance the desires of the pro-American Imperialism faction that wants to harp on this point with the need to balance the article by the significance of the viewpoint, against the fact that America is almost never used to mean the Americas. The lede should summarise the topic - not go into obscure detail on a tangential point. WilyD 13:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The point, though, is that this article is terrible - really terrible, the lede was atrocious, and the solution is to try and fix the article, not to quibble over the wording of something that shouldn't be there in the first place. It's difficult, of course, because South America and North America are almost always considered separately in English language sources, but with a bit of work we can push it up to something decent. WilyD 13:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the word "rarely"-- there isn't a source to verify that and it conflicts with several sources given in past discussions. If nonclomenture must be addressed in the lead it should be done with maximum accuracy (concise is good, but not at the cost of accuracy). Looking at the sources given, the only source to address commonality is the McArthur one, but it doesn't verify that the singular is used rarely. The Fee & MacAlpine citation confuses me: the note about Canadian usage refers to the demonym rather than the geographical name, and it looks like that's probably the same for all of the other versions mentioned in that note (since most of them were previously quoted here). Making it even less relevant is that "all specify the USA in their definition of "America[n?]" is also true of the continent -- all of them specify the continent in their definition also... so that tell us what?

It's difficult to find a reliable English-language reference that won't give the landmass when describing the name "America". Several of the sources given in previous source lists only referred to the landmass in their descriptions. So I really don't see how "rarely" can possibly be accurate. I don't see why commonality needs addressing in the lead at all, especially since we don't seem to have the sources to back up what's written. If it must be there it should be verified and accurate. Rennell435 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However I'd like to note that the use of America in English for anything else than the US has been a POV issue in this article for years, for some reason people feel strongly about that on both sides and there might international undertones as well (aka who "owns" the term America). This makes it hard for rational arguments to prevail and to get an appropriate and stable lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it probably draws time and energy away from the more important elements of the subject. I think many of the arguments (e.g. "what Latin Americans use", "how we say it in my country") can categorically be dismissed as irrelevant to English usage and our motto. An easy solution (to my mind) would just be leave nonclomenture out of the lead completely. Or word it in a way that can't be disputed, that matches the source exactly. "More historically" is one qualifier we can take from the citation given. The problem with the most recent change is that while it's more concise and much easier to read, it lost the verifiability that the previous, consensus-based description had. Rennell435 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said already I agree and in fact i already changed the lead recently in that sense, but it only lasted a few hours. So I remain somewhat skeptical, whether editors will agree on such an approach.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

correct citations/quotes

Since LedRush sees the need for a "discussion", I'll post a short comment here:

• First of all the current formulation ("almost exclusively") is despite being somewhat of misquotation still justifiable since it is more or less correct as far as the big picture and summary of all sources is concerned.
• I'd like to note however, that it is somewhat of misquotation. Because the source from which it is taken refers to the use in Canada (and not in the English speaking world). Moreover it describes the use of adjective American and not of the noun America. The formulation I had suggested ("primarily") was taken from another of the 3 cited sources and that source actually does refer to the use of the noun America in the English language (rather than use if American in Canada). From my perspective that clearly suggests that "primarily" is the better wording. But be that as it may I'm not going to participate in lengthy over a minor difference in wording. If people insist on the current wording ("almost exclusively") and don't care about the misquotation, then that's the way it'll be.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a quotation. I think if you accept it as not being a quotation and as a summary of sources in the article (as your first bullet acknowledges) there is no issue. Remember, we don't even have to cite things in the lede (and many consider it better not to as long as the sources are in the main article).LedRush (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of being required to citing sources in the lead, but about giving an appropriate description/summary of the sources you cite and your suggestion simply ain't it for the reasons explained above. In my book it's subtle POV pushing by picking a phrase from source but out of context, which however is still (barely) justifiable in the general picture. But as I said before, I don't really care much, which wording is ultimately used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your characterization of my edit is unfair and in bad faith. It is not a quote. It is a common way to describe things that rarely happen, and we have plenty of sources that say that.LedRush (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I did those changes but some people here don't like them, maybe because they want an edit by a registered user and for that reason they don't give the same importance to those edits.

I really think that this is the better wording, and it has sources:

"In the English language, the Americas refers to the landmasses of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions, whereas America, in current usage, is primarily used to refer to the United States of America, though not without some ambiguities or uncertainties."

Or something like this, if people don't want to cite things:

"In the English language, the Americas refers to the landmasses of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions, whereas America, in modern usage, is primarily used to refer to the United States of America. (See usage)."

--200.121.150.207 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

None of it needs to be in the lead, though. There's a lot of intricacies and nuance to the question of usage, but there's no importance. Let it be dicussed down article, where there's space to dwell on all the subtleties (or in a subarticle like American (word), to avoid the undue emphasis problem or discussing it in depth here. It's a minor footnote in a dictionary; an encyclopaedia shouldn't be dwelling on it in the main article: history, geography, demogragy, ecology, politics - those are what the article should be focussed on. WilyD 09:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes leave the first sentence in the lead as it is and move the second paragraph to later section (terminology) and probably move much or the terminology discussion into a separate article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Inuit/Eskimo

The Innuit arrived certainly way before 1000 AD, which is actually the time viking/norse arrived in the Americas. Some online sources that could be used are:

• http://books.google.de/books?id=ZxWJVc4ST0AC&pg=PA535 in the labrador region since 2500 bc at least
• http://books.google.de/books?id=Jvf2Zj_czhIC&pg=PA34 first arrival depending on the region between 6000-4000 bc
• http://books.google.de/books?id=MtcoAs_m_jAC&pg=PA35 map with various immigration waves and detailed info

The last link is probably the most authoritative source, but all 3 could be used in doubt.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My research suggests the problem is more or less that they arrived in Alaska between two and eight thousand years ago, but stayed there until about a thousand years ago, when they spread across the arctic. Canadian sources referring to them arriving in Canada are what's screwing me up. I'll try and discern what's authoritative, or at least a nice-looking cite with a big range. WilyD 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw. the 1000 AD figure is probably due to the origin of the Thule people the direct ancestors of todays inuit, they formed around 1000 AD however they originated locally from earlier groups and where not a migration wave from Asia. The migration wave from Asia that lead to today's inuit (ancestors of the Thule people) cames to the Americas at least 2000 bc, i.e. 4000 years ago or earlier.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of ambiguity introduced too, in that hanging around the Alaskan side of the Bering sea isn't terribly different from hanging around the Siberian side; trying to introduce a distinction where it doesn't exist. Nonetheless, some of the papers I've read have sounded like the genetic drift time between Inuit and Siberian groups may be considerably less than 2000 BC. Which is why I'm trying to find a review paper or such, neither population genetics nor human migration are the area of my expertise. WilyD 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This article, for instance, gives a divergence time of 1-3 kyrs for Inuit and Siberian populations; I read it to imply there was a migration back from Alaska into Siberia concurrant with the Thule culture spreading across the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, but that makes the problem messy. I'll keep looking. WilyD 15:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

IN any case the current formulation (probably the lead and definitely in the later section) needs to be fixed, as this suggests (or at least it easily can be understood that way), that around 1000 AD a migration wave from East Asia settled the artic areas for the first time, that's nonsense for several reasons.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As a temporary fix, I just ripped out the dates. Both should be given longer-term solutions. I think it's important the lede make the point that there was more than a single migration into the Americas, the Inuit (and Na Dene?) came after the rest, etc. The article skims over 40 kyrs of history pretty quickly, which it shouldn't quite so much, I think. A least a tip of the hat, then link to the subarticles. WilyD 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What I have written long ago at Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas...Got to be careful as the Na Dene are a genetically district gropu
The Na-Dené groups are also unusual among indigenous peoples of the Americas in having a relatively high frequency of Q-M242 (25%). This indicates that the Na-Dené migration occurred from the Russian Far East after the initial Paleo-Indian colonization, but prior to modern Inuit, Inupiat and Yupik expansions. Sequencing of the mitochondrial genome from Paleo-Eskimo remains (3,500 years old) are distinct from modern Amerindians, falling within sub-haplogroup D2a1, a group observed among today's Aleutian Islanders, the Aleuts and Siberian Yupik populations. This suggests that the colonizers of the far north and subsequently Greenland originated from later coastal populations. Then a genetic exchange in the northern extremes introduced by the Thule people (proto-Inuit) approximately 800–1,000 years ago began. These final Pre-Columbian migrants introduced haplogroups A2a and A2b to the existing Paleo-Eskimo populations of Canada and Greenland, culminating in the modern Inuit.

Thanks, that looks really helpful; I won't be able to do anything for a week (since I'm away from my office, so I can't access a lot of the sources that're behind paywalls), but I'll get to it if no one else does first. Thanks again. WilyD 07:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Americas? The name of the CONTINENT is only AMERICA

Americas? The name of the CONTINENT is only AMERICA. "The Americas" is only an ingenious concept invented by the no-name country called "United States of America" for appropriete the name of the continent for itself: "Good Morning America", "God Bless America", "American Gladiators", etc. America IS NOT the name of U.S.A. and should be applicated to the CONTINENT. U.S.A. people: look for a name for your country, that America is the name of the continent, NOT the name of your no-name country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.18.12 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The is an active and very long discussion about this exact issue directly above this. Weebro55 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cities

The enormous number of diffuse city charts without much content is also basically unreadable and probably way too detailed. Just the three biggest cities is probably not the way to go either. I imagine all the information should be collapsed into a single chart (and some of it left for more specialised articles), and maybe some text on urbanisation in the Americas? Or ? WilyD 08:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

America/Americas redux

I would like to discuss again the point mention below about the name of America... why would you make such a distinction America/the Americas.. It is not everybody else's fault that some people don't know that they live in a given country which is part of America but it is NOT America by itself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing... people from Europe, Asia or other continents such as America (yes America is a continent not a country dah!) that are reading the info provided on this page by Wikipedia, please note that this info is wrong and others are not allowed to modified it. America is a continent, name given by Amerigo Vespucci when arrived at the south of theses lands. America is not a country it is a continent formed by different countries such as Canada, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, USA, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akikax (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have some serious issues, sir. 75.128.82.50 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

America and the Americas are clearly the same and I think both terms can be used, but it's just a common mistake to call the United States America, as well as it's a common mistake to call the United Kingdom Great Britain or England. People just make mistakes when they're reffering to countries. And most people can understand what they mean anyway. So I don't think we need to discuss this anymore... (Btw, I would clearly call the continent America and the country the United States.)

And I think it's good that we, us on Wikipedia, points out that America can reffer to different areas. Not to offend anyone, but otherwise, you'd just have some stupid American who thinks the United States covers all of it... So I think that the way we have it now is completely fine. But that's just my opinion. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "mistake" to call the United States "America" - It might not have begun that way, but it is accepted as correct usage in the English language. Both usages are correct, but one is far more common in English, as is "Americas" for the 2 continents. The article reflects that usage. It should not be changed to appease "stupid" (your words reapplied) people who think that "America" can only mean the combined continents, and that all other usages is totally incorrect, and must be changed everywhere, especially in English, and that all people who use "America" to mean the US must be insulted relentlessly as bigots, racists, stupid, ad nauseum. :) - BilCat (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be much tighter on some of the posts here. As BilCat says, this is overwhelmingly the common usage in English. These discussions are very WP:FORUMy. Unless people are making specific proposals about changing the text of the article they don't really serve any great benefit, entertaining as they can sometimes be. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

From a historical, and therefore scientific, point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cosmographiae_Introductio_America_Reference.jpg The saying "That part of the page of the 1507 (September) edition of the Cosmographiae Introductio in which the name of America is proposed for the New World" should fix the nomenclature in favour of America as a continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwiki (talk • contribs) 13:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Countries, Multinational Organisations

So, I think countries can't really be expanded beyond a table much. I'm inclined to merge it with multinational organisations (which has a lot of potential to be more than just a list) into a "Politics" section or the like; Maybe "culture" somehow, but I'm not entirely sure how to do this. I'm inclined to think Multinational organisations should really only feature Pan-American organisations, and leave NAFTA, NATO, etc. for the North America article. But maybe that's off base. I'd reject national or sub national organisations, so shouldn't the same principle apply to continental organisations in an article about a supercontinent? WilyD 08:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some insight into this problem. Picking two examples, is NAFTA really a Pan-American organisation? Or just a North American organisation? Is the Commonwealth a Pan-American organisation, or just a global organisation? Even a quick straw poll would be helpful. WilyD 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think the population density in the country chart is pointless. I'm inclined to remove it, and add maybe language(s)? Or GDP, maybe? Latin Americans seem to really like the date of independence (or at least, shows up prominantly in the Latin American articles), perhaps we should use that? (Although then we have to have that long, awkward conversation about when Canada became an independent country, but I'm usually up for that.) Thoughts? WilyD 08:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, my practice has been this; I've listed the official language(s), and any languages that sources describe as being the native tongue of more than 10% of the residents. That's kinda arbitrary, so if anyone else has suggestions, I'm open to them. I've probably already been a little skechy is compressing the 3 indigenous languages of Bolivia, though I fear a list of 38 languages will ruin the table. Maybe Spanish should be separated, just a statement like "Bolivia has 38 official languages, read the article" would be more appropriate? WilyD 11:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Global Cities Index

I believe that the sections listing "Alpha", "Beta" and "Gamma" should be removed or explained. Dont believe anyone will understand this system that is unexplained. What the hell does Alpha++ mean?Moxy (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are cities that have the most influence economically, politically, etc around the world. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what it all means .. but the average readers will have no clue what defines each term? As mentioned before the info is unless to our readers without context.Moxy (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean much to me either, though I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing. Realistically, most articles will contain a lot of information that may not mean a lot of me (for instance, once we get some decent biome information up, I'm going to have to go to biome to remember what those are.) The question should be "Is alpha, beta, gamma-ness a widespread measurement system among urban geographers (or whoever), or is it just from a self-hyping press release by some political think tank that doesn't get re-used, beyond maybe newspaper stories that regurgitate the press release?" That I don't know. Does anyone? WilyD 08:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Transcontinental countries"

This addition is problematic, as it has no source. The wording also falls afoul of WP:WEASEL. The linked article does not include that claim (nor does it contain any relevant sources). The material had better stay out until someone finds sources that specifically make that claim.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• At a minimum, the half you removed about who the dependencies are dependencies of should be entirely uncontroversial. The linked article does include that claim (although it phrases it slightly differently). It is unsourced, although pre-emptively sourcing what should be uncontroversial isn't necessarily good practice anyhow; do you believe any part of it to be wrong? I'd rather not spend the time to dig up more sources than're necessary. WilyD 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The edit doesn't make any sense. Transcontinental means spanning across a continent, not owning land on two continents. Hot Stop 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the wording is particularly unclear. I'm also unconvinced this information is particularly important. I'd be content with saying "there are xx sovereign states in the Americas, as well as xx dependencies of other countries." As for the line about "who the dependencies are dependencies of", it was redundant with what's already in the article, though the current treatment isn't very clear either. As usual the solution will be finding sources and following what they say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I might be persuaded that whether countries are confined to the Americas or not is relevant (although when I consider the scope, I'm inclined towards it); who still has dependencies (especially given we talk about dependencies and independent countries separately) is quite relevant. As it stands now, the section (like a couple others) is basically data barfed into a table - "there are xx sovereign states in the Americas, as well as xx dependencies of other countries" mitigated that a little bit, but basically left a stub for what should be a significant section - the article should be able to stand on it's own if the table were removed, which it obviously can't now.

Incidentally, Transcontinental country uses the term the way I was employing it; which is where I took the term from. If people prefer another phrasing, I'm not wedded to it. WilyD 15:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd object to just adding data or wordage just to pad out the section. Additionally, the more I look at it, the more I see the current wording is absolutely flawed. For instance, the number of other dependencies/territories/overseas regions, etc., is slapped together. It arbitrarily includes both territories and integral parts of countries, such as the French overseas departments. But it excludes the Canadian territories, presumably because they're contiguous with the rest of Canada, as well as the federal districts of the several countries that have them. However, in terms of government, they are much more similar to Puerto Rico or the British Overseas Territories than any of them are to the French overseas departments, which are fully part of France. The whole thing looks like original research on the part of Wikipedia editors. I'm going to remove everything but the only truly uncontroversial part, which is that there are 35 sovereign states in the Americas.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If we take your interpretation, then there aren't 35 sovereign states in the Americas - there are 39. Anything (and everything) can be looked at in a number of ways - that doesn't mean everything is original research. The choice of what's a dependency and what isn't is just parroting back the CIA world factbook (presumably because it was mass copy-pasted in ten years ago). WilyD 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Beyond which, if the table makes the section redundant, it's the table that needs to go, not the article. WilyD 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, no interpretation matters besides what appears in the best sources for a particular topic. Once again, what will fix this issue is introducing sources. The fact that we're even having this discussion suggests this issue isn't uncontroversial.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't raised any issue, beyond disputing everything. What are you disputing? That Greenland is an autonomous country within Denmark? That French Guiana is an overseas region of France? That Turks and Caicos is a British Overseas Territory? Merely asserting that copy-pasting the CIA World Factbook is original research is an impossible objection to address. WilyD 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather go by this UN scheme, so we can exclude Navassa Island, as including it is dumber than a sack of hair (and done presumably to aid the American dispute with Haiti over possession, rather than any informational purpose). WilyD 07:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, so I haven't raised any issue, except for all the issues I raised? Obviously I'm not disputing the existence of such things as Greenland or the Turks and Caicos, I'm disputing the lumping together of all these non-sovereign state entities as if they were objectively comparable, then counting them up and calling it a day. As I pointed out there are holes in that logic a mile wide, as the different entities are not comparable. This became especially troublesome with your introduction of terminology ("dependencies") that did not apply to all the areas (the French overseas regions, and possibly the Danish and Dutch "constituent countries"), but did apply to other entities not presently included (the Canadian territories). You noted even further issues with the presentation, but continue to act confused as to where there are issues.

The fact that the material was (ostensibly) taken from the CIA World Factbook is no excuse, especially considering it's nowhere indicated that the information comes from the Factbook. I shouldn't have to explain the necessity of sourcing contentious material to you.

Your current version is substantially better, but it still should be sourced; I'm simply not seeing any other sources that try to count all the countries and other entities in the Americas, let alone conflate entities that are actually part of a country with territories (and in at least one case, an uninhabited island).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix here, I accidentally changed both to departments as opposed to just replacing regions. I also don't know that we need to list the American territories, considering that the US is already within the continent. Again, it would be helpful to see some other source that tries to list all of the countries and other entities in the Americas and follow what they do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this list is taken from the CIA factbook. Personally, I'd rather use the UN list I linked above (although it's not ideal either - I suspect it hasn't been updated to reflect the breakup of the Netherland Antilles, and that's why it lumps them together; not sure what to do about that). I'm not sure there's a particularly authoritative list (Plausibly the OAS, though I'm not sure they have a list, and I probably wouldn't consider them as unbiased as the CIA, even - their Who we are statement could be used to source that there're only 35 independent states in the Americas.)

Beyond that, disputing that the overseas collectivities of France are overseas collectivities of France is a specific, actionable claim (it's easy enough to add a cite, even if it's dumb, and likely to be a problem as the article approaches a non-shit state with several hundred references making it long and unpleasant to load - it's already slow to edit for me). Merely blanking everything and saying it's OR isn't - especially when it isn't remotely so. If I can't puzzle out why you'd object to something, I can't hope to use a citation. WilyD 13:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you really this confused about what original research is and why sources are necessary? As I've explained twice already, the original research here is in taking a bunch of facts (there are x overseas collectivities of France, x constituent countries of Denmark, etc.) and then synthesizing them all together to make novel claims and implications: that these entities are in some way comparable enough to be counted all together, that there are x number of them all told, that they're all "dependencies", etc. Such claims don't appear in any source that I've seen. The "actionable" solution is to remove the synthesis, and find actual sources and follow what they say.

Speaking of which, the UN source is a good start, but it shows why actually following the sources is so important. For one thing, it doesn't indicate what the different units are, whether they're sovereign states, territories, overseas departments, etc. From there, while we say there are "three public bodies of the Netherlands", the source doesn't say that, it lists "Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba" as one collective unit with one country code. Getting this stuff right is important.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confused about what original research is - you appear to be. There's nothing remotely novel about what I said; merely being uncited doesn't make something novel. In general we can't copy-paste information from most places; due to copyright concerns, that the Dutch Public bodies haven't been assigned separate country or area codes does mean we should misrepresent the facts; or are you asserting that this article is a hoax? WilyD 14:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There is something novel the material, in that it made, well, novel claims and implications that don't appear in any other source. Unless you've found a source that lumps all the non-sovereign state entities together and calls them all "dependencies", which seems pretty unlikely. I don't know what you're talking about regarding copy-paste; why would we be copy-pasting anything? On Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba, what I'm saying is the source doesn't say there are "three public bodies of the Netherlands"; it lists them together as one unit, and doesn't mention the term "public bodies". Referring to them as one unit appears common; we have an article on it, though it's titled "Caribbean Netherlands" as opposed to "Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba". We need to determine how we're going to refer to them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what Cúchullain is trying to say is that plainly and simply you can't count unlike objects, and therefore the number serves no purpose. Prof Wrong (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence, as it's written now, does not count unlike objects together, and Cúchullain has twice applied {{cn}} tags to it, in that state. WilyD 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's better than it was, but it continues to group unlike objects together, and counts them individually for some reason despite no other source doing that (not even the source you've since added). As for the tag, I added it once and merely re-added it when you removed it, as you hadn't added any relevant source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Amerike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norse vs Norwegian

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

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

Move request

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

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

---

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Neutral. There are two conditions in wp:the, only one of which needs to be met. Americas by itself means nothing, unless the United States is being subdivided by various factors, such as this study which defines "eight Americas".[4] There are two continents involved, NA and SA, which form "the Americas". This is the first section of wp:the, while capitalizing the comes in the second section. Apteva (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:THE. "Americas" by itself has no real meaning, and titling the article without the "the" is often confusing to readers from Latin America, as various discussions on this talkpage will demonstrate (not citeable, of course). - BilCat (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia:THE#Other_proper_names -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can the plural be the "Isle of Scillies" when there is more than one island?[5] Another example Channel islands. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move British Isles to "The British Isles" too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, it's said that we have "the Gambia" and "the Bahamas", even though "Gambia" and "Bahamas" would work just as well and we don't capitalize the "the", because some people do capitalize it. Well, some people capitalize the "the" in "The Americas" too.[11] — kwami (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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