Talk:America (disambiguation)/Archive 1

message: One fact which may help support the argument that America is firstly a continent is the Olympic Flag. The flag displays five rings representing the five continental entities which send athletes to the Olympics.  These five continental entities are, if we move across alphabetically, Africa, America, Asia, Europa, and, Oceania.  The second ring, "America", represents a continental complex composed of almost 40 countries and nearly a billion people.  I think we would all find it very depressing indeed if nations hosting the Olympics were to misinterpret the meaning of "America" and invite only the USA to represent America at The Games.--ArturoH 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the name of the largest "isolated landmass" I wonder?  Afroeurasia?  Eurafrasia? -Acjelen 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, the other side of the debate can also be accused of the same circular logic.  -Acjelen 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For this reason, the article America is not a redirect to United States, but is this disambiguation page. -Acjelen 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of soapboxes, Wily, how about knocking it off with the Manifest Destiny rhetoric? It has nothing to do with improving the article, it only reiterates your opinion that everyone who uses or wishes to use "American" to refer to the "Americas" somehow supports Manifest Destiny. Please take your own advice on soapboxing, lest further useless debate be sparked.--Cúchullain t/c 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're looking for.  I haven't tried to introduce any such thing into the article(s) in question.  I've only tried to identify problematic suggestions is clear, unambigious terms.  Edits should be neutral, editors don't have to be.  Honestly, I think it's better if editors know where each other stands, so we can work together more easily.  While articles should be verifiable and neutral, on talk pages its more expediant (and honest) to be truthful rather than verifiable and neutral. I'm sorry if I'm taking part in an unnecessary debate and you find it annoying or distracting.  But I feel it's better to hash things out on a talk page where editors disagree, rather than engage in edit wars on the article(s). WilyD 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical Fault, reliabilty of sources, and etiquette 

message: The lists should be in order of prevalence and usage.  The term "America," without a modifier, is most often used as a colloquial for the United States of America.  The term "America" used for the two continents of North America and South America is becoming more and more obsolete, being replaced by the term "Americas," reflecting recognition that North and South America, in particular are two separate continents. Chiss Boy 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: I am in the process of disamming America. I'm getting there. I'm about halfway through the list. I am doing it on a case by case basis, so America can be diverted to American or United States or whatever the intention is. If anyone sees any major errors, fix them. --Woohookitty 00:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, it's sure taking a long time to get through the other half, eh? Or are new undisambiguated links added on a more-or-less daily basis? The fact that 99% of the links to this page intend to reference its United States meaning should clearly indicate to everyone that America should redirect to the United States page. Anything else is a purely political argument that does nothing to help the readers of this encycolpedia. So can we agree that if in another year there still exists a significant number (can we agree to more than 100?) of links to this disambiguation page then we'll move this page to America (disambiguation), redirect America to United States, and end this argument? Ewlyahoocom 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A year? Why not do it sooner? Uris 16:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation Issues

message: Obviously the word America has many different meanings or Wikipedia would not need a disambiguation page for it.  Indeed, the two principal uses of the word (as labels for either the lands of the western hemisphere collectively or for the United States of America specifically) are deeply disputed, with some users on both sides insulted by the use on the opposite side.  Sadly this debate is unlikely to end soon.  Many residents of the United States will live their entire lives unaware of the dispute, using the narrow sense of the word routinely, emphatically, patriotically, even solemnly.  This page serves to direct Wikipedia users to the correct name of the article they seek.  On Wikipedia, the article on America in the broad sense is Americas.  This is how the link should appear on this page.  Since titles and vehicle names require a formatted appearance, they are piped to appear correctly.  Geographical terms and other names are not piped.  If one wishes to change the name of any article, do so at the article but not the disambiguation page. -Acjelen 04:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of why I stopped being active with Wikipedia for so long.  I'm not willing to sit on top of articles and wait to push the revert button.  It's too much hassle to constantly watch articles just to remove others' biases.  The US is no longer listed first, even though we already had that discussion.  I got tired of moving it back.  I've changed "America" back to "The Americas", because it's what's consistent, both with Wikipedia internally and with general English-language use.  But I'm sure someone will change it again soon enough.  Agh. -- Dpark 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing how article names appear on this page 

message: Well America is a continent not a country, now if you want to use it to call a country dosen't mean that you should change the meaning of it.
:As can be read below, not everyone agrees that America is a continent, but in that sense two continents. -Acjelen 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should post your comments under a heading, the same as most of the other comments here. Chiss Boy 11:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I would like to suggest to editors of this page that we should remove the links to North America and South America.
The beginning of the page would then approximate:
America is usually meant as either:
* The Americas, the lands between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
* The United States of America
:(See Use of the word America and Use of the word American.)
America is also:
What do other editors think? -Acjelen 01:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the current arrangement that lists only the bare minimum, entries for which are also found in numerous publications (see above).  However, I'll support removing them as proposed if a clear consensus does. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdivisions proposal

message: I request a vote, on if this DAB page should include a direct link to CA and the CI. Hawkfly 19:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central American and Carribean?

message: The very fact that the anon editor used the word "Americentric" in refering to me as a person with a bias favoring the United States only further proves my point that in the English language it is much more common for the word "America" to refer to the United States.--RWR8189 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Americentric " 

message: One continent, two continents, doesn't matter: According to Microsoft Encarta, "America, second largest isolated landmass of the earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere" link. Deepstratagem 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be dangerous to hold the position that continents correspond to tectonic plates.  People in India might object if told they were no longer in Asia. -Acjelen 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what Italians and Germans need to say about what words the people of the United States use to describe themselves. -Acjelen 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some encyclopedias weren't afraid. 

message: , and read what is written there for the term America, to see what others might say about it, you may find surprises...
As a remark, if we, the USA people, say that America is the same as USA, then in USA, America will be the same as
USA. That is true and clear to me, if we want to re-baptise USA with XYZ, that is fine, but for the rest of the world USA will not be XYZ. Remember that "English literature" does not mean "USA literature," and as the above person says
the dictionaries are also "English literature" and say otherwise. USA rules USA, only.
:Of course the United States "rules" the United States only.  The Spanish sense of the word America refers to a landmass, but really nothing more.  There is no "America" in that sense to rule.  There is Aruba, Brazil, Belize, Canada, Cuba, Colombia, etc.  I suppose the United States could annex each of these nation individually, but the people would still insist that there were two contintents and use Americas to refer to the lands of the western hemisphere. -Acjelen 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in Spanish 

message: Please try to put here just references to verifiable information and not opinions. Godot 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need the CIA or any reference book to tell me that people in the United States use or don't use "America" to refer to their country.  I only need to go outside and walk down the street or listen to maybe three minutes of television commercials. Will the CIA tell the child a cow does not say moo nor a pig oink?  Shall we try to convince the world with "facts" that the ocean isn't blue and that the moon is not up?  If Benjamin Franklin called his country America, then why shan't I? -Acjelen 23:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Godot. It's not just wrong in principle, but inaccurate. Microsoft Encarta decided not to play popularity games with their encyclopedia entry on America link. Maybe Wikipedia can set the record straight, too. Deepstratagem 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some objective facts to take into account 

message: Objectively, it is easy to demonstrate that the most common meaning of "America" by a long, long way is "United States of America". (Just as an American is someone from the USA.) I'm happy to demonstrate this with sources if people say what sources they will accept (there are plenty of usage and style guides that encourage the use of the word "American" to mean of or pertaining to the USA - such as that of The Times). Based on commonality, one might expect that meaning to appear first - however, I do not seek to argue that, but instead that we should aid the reader by making the most common meaning clear by adding the phrase "or more commonly" before the second bullet point.
I'd add that I am surprised by Wildnox's comment that adding "more commonly" is POV (or in English is expressing an opinion rather than a fact). I don't believe it is - as it is clearly not arguing that either meaning ought to be more prevalent, it is merely stating that one meaning is far, far more prevalent than another (which can easily be demonstrated), jguk 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have any comments to make before I reinsert the reference to the more common usage? I'm happy to discuss concerns if there are any, jguk 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be best. 198.111.167.130 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, please demonstrate that one meaning is far more prevalent keeping in mind that "Latin America" and "South America" do not refer to the United States of America. Please be sure to cite strong scholarly sources as evidence. Deepstratagem 17:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those don't count since they're indivisible.  Only certain adjectives designate that the word America refers to the landmass rather than the country, including North, South, and Latin.  In fact, I can't think of any other word in the English Language that does so.  These three adjectives change the meaning of word from a political region to a geographic one, and it's hardly the only occasion.  Is Inner Mongolia part of Mongolia?  Is Equatorial Guinea part of Guinea?  Is Northern Ireland part of Ireland?  (Actually, let's not start that last debate again.)  I believe these terms are used in Spanish as well; the nouns, however, by themselves, almost always refer to the political regions.  I'll grant that "America" is used to refer to the Americas on occasion, especially by native speakers of Spanish (note the grammar of the majority of the more heated arguments for "America" as the landmass) or Portuguese, and significantly often by native speakers.  However, every time I pick up almost anything British, especially The Economist, I marvel at the frequency with which they use "America" to mean the United States, compared to American publications, which tend to avoid the word entirely.  I have no hard data, though; I'm not sure where I'd get them.  (Besides, where's everyone on the front lines against Colombia?)  Twin Bird 05:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Those don't count since they're indivisible"; who says they are indivisible? Under that logic United States of America cannot be simply referred to as America because United States of America is indivisible. Deepstratagem 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The most common meaning

message: I've seen too much vandalism ithis page these recent days. Users blanking, spamming, etc. Should it be temporaly blocked?
Shadowy Crafter 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rate of vandalism seems normal to me.  I like to think having this page available for vandalism holds down the vandalism on the article pages, especially United States. -Acjelen 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the most vandalised page on my watchlist, but then again I do agree with Acjelen. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And to clarify, I meant the rate of vandalism seemed "normal" for this page. -Acjelen 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Deepstratagem recently changed the first definition from:  
The Americas, the lands and regions of the Western hemisphere, usually divided into North America and South America, to 
The Americas, or American continent, usually divided into North America and South America.  
Since there is no consensus on whether or not the Americas are one continent or two, and the previous definition didn't use the c-word at all, I reverted to the more neutral introduction.  The introduction was extensively debated above, and has been stable for about 10 months, so I believe it should stay the way it is now, without promoting either point of view.  --Confiteordeo 09:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Confiteordeo for all your work recently on this disambig page.  I recently ended up at Colonial North America north of Rio Grande.  I thought the article would be about Texas, Colorado, Sante Fe; but it is the old article Colonial America moved there.  It is sad and damaging to Wikipedia that articles on a subject cannot use the terms long established for that subject. -Acjelen 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also sad and damaging to Wikipedia we have to use terms like "the Americas", when there are other terms long established for that subject. Deepstratagem 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure calling it "Americas" is neutral. That's a neologism. If you want to be fair, it would also be described as American continent. Deepstratagem 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the name of the Americas article is changed, then we can change how it is listed on this disambiguation page.  There are WP guidelines against giving undue weight to minority points of view while considering NPOV. -Acjelen 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A neologism?  Is that verifiable?  Also, Deepstratagem, please don't use "rv" in your edit summaries unless you're actually reverting something.  --Confiteordeo 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indent correctly if you are addressing me. Deepstratagem 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, maybe you want to look at WP:TPG.  There is no policy or single system regarding indentation on talk pages, so there's no reason to cop an attitude.  I'm only trying to improve this page, as I hope you are.  --Confiteordeo 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I especially like the part where it says any indentation system is acceptable.  Since my post was underneath Acjelen's to keep things in chronological order, and was off-set from that post to show that I wasn't responding to it but to one above, and since that was clear enough that you knew that I was talking to you, I'd say I followed the guidelines pretty well.  So where do you get off talking about "indenting correctly," then?  You know what, don't answer that; this discussion is already too asinine and off-topic.  We can talk when you're actually interested in improving the article and willing to respond to honest questions about your assertions.  Kisses, Confiteordeo 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: The lack of Central and Latin America was glaring, and extraordinary given this is about America, SqueakBox 14:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this page isn't "about" America, but about helping WP users find the right article.  How am I flying to Chicago, that's American Airlines.  What was Johnny Cash's last record label, that's American Recordings.  For the most part, however, people probably use this page to get either to the United States article or the Americas article.  Since editors are unlikely to come here looking for the Central America or Latin America articles, they aren't listed.  North and South America are given as an added explanation for "the Americas". -Acjelen 14:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Central and Latin America

message: Someone has reverted my edit under the banner of vandalism which it was not. "America" commonly refers to either the US or the entire Western Hemisphere of which the US is a part. North, Central, South, and Latin America are also commonly used terms, but they are rarely referred to as "America." Therefore, I have put the two most common used concepts associated with the word on top. I put the US in bold, because in the everyday language "I'm from America" means that I am from the US, not "I am from the Western Hemisphere" - that statement is almost unheard of. 
Once again, this is not vandalism, it is motivated by valid reason and its purpose is to ease the navigation on Wikipedia pages. If you disagree, please give your opinions before editing. Thank you, (LonghornJohnny 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bolding for emphasis like that makes the Manual of Style unhappy.  Bolding is used in the intro to highlight the name of the subject, it's not appropriate for a disambig page. WilyD 14:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to editing this page, LonghornJohnny.  I hope you stay and help out.  We need as much of it as we can get as this page is heavily vandalized.  Most of this vandalism takes the form of replacing the page's content with things such as "America is poopy" or "America is full of fat people".  At times the page is also disrupted by edit wars over the order of the first two entries.  This is a kind of vandalism as well.  The order of the first two elements is not based on an oversight.  It has been stable in this order for some time.  I like to think of the order as broader, narrower, but other long-term editors may have their own reasons why it is so stable.  I would like to mention bolding.  Editors on WP use bolding for different reasons and often disagree about what is overuse of bolding.  I don't think the entry for the United States needs anymore emphasis than it already gets. -Acjelen 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You might be confusing Latinos with Latin Americans... and of course, nor is there another continent with the full name of "America". Deepstratagem 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fairly easy claim to make, given that there is no continent with the name America at all... WilyD 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another implies there was at least one, but I know you are just giving me a hard time. Deepstratagem 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it was implicit, which is why I thought it was wise to make it explicitly clear that there ain't one.  WilyD 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I use Latino and Latin American as synonymous terms. It may be they mean something different in the US, SqueakBox 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers in the United States are likely to assume that Latino or Black without another country qualifier mean Latinos or Blacks in the United States as that is how they are used in the United States -Acjelen 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incorrect. The terms are only used like that in the US in the context of the US; non-US Latinos or blacks are still called Latinos or blacks. If anyone assumed SqeakBox was talking about Latinos in the US based on the lack of a qualifier, they'd be assuming incorrectly. But saying "latino" in this case is confusing (there are plenty of Hispanics in the US, and they consider themselves US-Americans); I think what Squeak meant to suggest is that folks in Latin America don't consider themselves (pan-)Americans. I don't think this matters- the word "America" has multiple uses, and that's that. Though I think it's silly that the primary use isn't on top, it's not worth fighting over.--Cúchullain t/c 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure it's the primary use. You had almost convinced me. See recent discussion in use of the word American. Deepstratagem 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism - Red Herring 

message: Corticopia: "rv willful and unnecessarily convoluted text/edits, not arrived at through consensus"
Of course it's willful. Did you think it was involuntary? Not arrived at through consensus, but cited. Deepstratagem 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I defer to the prior statement -- yes: I wonder if your editions and comments are involuntary.  And not to say ignorant of prior and current discussion above regarding this.  Corticopia 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wonder, then why state it as fact? ... Ignorant of what? Maybe you can enlighten me. Deepstratagem 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder because you are being excessively argumentative and arguably disruptive, with unclear aims or ill-informed reasoning, here and elsewhere (noted here).  And all edits should be accompanied with comment:  I could've just as easily wrote "WTF?" or "read the talk page", but that would be too simple.  As well, you appear ignorant of discussions above about the entry (particularly one happening now), and go ahead and change it anyway without explanation.  Corticopia 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "because you are being excessively argumentative, with unclear aims or ill-informed reasoning, here and elsewhere." For example? "As well, you appear ignorant of discussions above about the entry" please back up your claims with evidence. The 3RR wikivacation sponsored by WilyD is for reverting not for ill-informed reasoning. Furthermore, you are the one not making sense: You wonder if my edit was involuntary because I'm "being excessively argumentative"; If that were the case there is no reason for the edit to have been involuntary - in fact the action seems to be soaked in intentionality - and I think I would know since it was I who made the edit. Note that it was cited and not inconsistent with anything written on this page. Deepstratagem 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is strewn here and elsewhere -- your edits and comments give pause.  Not only are you being argumentative, you continue to be disruptive -- which led to your 'vacation'.  Like, what is your point?  In any event, I am ending this pointless discussion.  Corticopia 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, please avoid addressing me, unless you have anything substantial to say. By the way, if you are looking for evidence, go to use of the word American and look my handle up on the talk page. As you can see I've offered more substantial evidence in favor of my arguments than you would know what to do with. Deepstratagem 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acknowledged, now run along ... Corticopia 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corticopia's Reversion