Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 11 October 2006

More Information Desired

land mass? population? stats?

Better Map

Perhaps someone can find a map/image of the hemesphere that doesn't cut off the top third of Canada? -- Infrogmation 18:59, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Done, same CIA map, cropped better. - Patrick 20:02, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why it should be America and not "America" when being discussed as a name or word

I just went through the article again changing all the uses of "words as words" to italics and removing "quotes". This is done for clarity and readability, as per the Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style:

Words as words

Italicize words when they are being written about, rather than being used to write about what they refer to. Similarly for letters.

• The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
  • The term ''panning'' is derived from ''panorama'', a word originally coined in ]
• The letter E is the most common letter in English.

Please stop changing this. Ortolan88 16:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Above, when should we use the panning version and when should we use the "panning" version? In the English language, italics are used to denote names of works, whereas quotes are used to denote pieces within works. The number of times I have had to correct articles because they were written by people who do not understand this concept is astounding. panorama would denote a music album, a book, a movie, a play, a novel, or another such title of a work; whereas the quotes would refer to a part of the work (e.g. a song title on an album, a chapter in a book, the name of an act in a play, or a part played by an actor in a movie). So, please, clarify why Misplaced Pages often seems to employ its own standards--or are several contributors merely ignorant of the proper punctuation?172.147.111.208 17:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page Move

Doesn't seem to pass the "capitalised The in running text" test; naming conventions would seem to apply. Alai 02:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Alai. Jonathunder 08:04, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 12:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continent or Continents?

Yaddar 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC) The fact of Europe and Asia sharing a condition of 2 separate continents is a grandfathered term since Ancient Europeans didn't knew most of Asia actually existed... (see history of Eurasia here in wikipedia). In the case of the American Continent, it was recognized as a whole NEW LANDMASS for the Spanish, Portuguesse and Italian Sailors, thus people of the time named WHOLE NEW CONTINENT "America" (and then, the origin of the word would be that of an Italian Sailor)

And besides the US schools, in the vast rest of the world out there America is seen as a one Continent, with two subcontinents((North America and South America); or 4 Geographical Regions (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean) or 2 Cultural Regions (Latin America and Anglo-saxon America, -Instead of "North America and Latin America" since we are talking about the LINGUISTIC origins of their population-)

So, the United States are the ONLY ONES who teach America the continent as plural and its in order to know if they are talking about the continent or their country... NOT because there are acctually TWO AMERICAS... "Americas" then would be a Regional terminology ruled by USAGE IN THE US and not for any Geographical nor Historical condition. (not the same as Europe and Asia, whose terminology comes across a Granfathered Historical condition).

Sice then we don't Speak of "Two Asias"... we don not say we have the Far East continent and the Middle East continent... we DO call them 'Geographical Regions'... North Amercia and South America aren't Continents, they are Subcontinents.

The following was previously by itself toward the top of the talk page without a heading. I've moved it here. For what it's worth, Central America is not a continent, and National Geographic does not recognize it as one. I believe it is more of a cultural division. Additionally, please sign comments in the future. If nothing else, it makes the flow of conversation much clearer. -- Dpark 00:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most references consider there to be two continents, North America and South America. However, most Spanish language references consider the two to be a single continent, "America".

Dears Most References??? The National Geographic maps shows clearly

Nort America

central america

South America

Also If you read afficial papers fromt he US governement they usually spoke about central america........

I Think that the article needs to stick to the three divisions in teh continent Milton 10:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

It is true that, as the article states, most references in English describe North America and South America as two continents. This article is a reference in English; why doesn't it do the same? It is confusing for the article to begin "The Americas is an alternative name in the English language for the continent of America," when for the typical reader the Americas are two continents. AJD 20:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned that up a bit. I removed the mention that English texts "assume" The Americas are two continents. This is basic geography. (See continent). As far as I can tell, this "The Americas are one continent" thing is a view held primarily by Spanish-speaking people. I don't pretend to understand the view, or where it comes from, but there are definitely two continents. At least, that's the accepted view in English-speaking areas. If there's some debate about the number of continents, let it be hashed out on the continent talk page. The Americas should present accepted information. In English, it's accepted that there are two continents. -- Dpark 06:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, see continent, where it says that a continent is "a large contiguous landmass". But then it goes on to ignore its own definition, and then re-uses it as if it is a deviation (a landbridge) in stead of the definition itself that makes the whole of America one continent. Confusing. There's a tension between logic and custom here. Well, in English, anyway. Not in Dutch, for example. I'm Dutch and In my entire life I've only once come across the plural form (Amerikas), which I pointed out to someone and we had a bit of a laugh at such stupidity.

Google 'de Amerikas' for dutch sites (.nl) and you'll get just one hit! Do the same for 'les Ameriques' for french sites (.fr) and you'll get 7000 hits versus 224.000 for 'l'Amerique'. In German it's 2640 versus 1.440.000. Of course, the use of Amerique/Amerika for the USA has to be substracted from these figures, and that requires quite some more research.

Or try Misplaced Pages. The German Misplaced Pages doesn't know about 'Amerikas' and has a disambiguation page for 'Amerika' that says it's either the continent (yes, one continent) or, colloquially, the USA. The French Misplaced Pages says 'Amerique' is one of the five continents (no mention of the plural). The Spanish Misplaced Pages says America is one continent with two subcontinents. And my other languages are a bit rusty :), but it seems that the Indonesian, Danish, Esperanto, Latin and Portuguese Wikipedias call America one continent. The Swedish Misplaced Pages seems to call it a double-continent and only the Italian, Romanian and Polish Wikipedias seem to say that there are two continents (North and South), although even these seem to suggest an ambiguity.

So it's not the Spanish who deviate, it's more like the English language is the odd one out (avoiding ambiguity with the colloquial naming of the USA), with some other languages following suit rather half-heartedly. Of course, this is the Enlish Misplaced Pages, so usage in the English language is the criterium, but don't pretend it's a Spanish oddity to call America one continent. That's even scientifically the most correct naming.

DirkvdM 09:40, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Then again, shouldn't an encyclopedia be language-independent? Or rather, shouldn't there be a version of Misplaced Pages for the people of the world (and thus language-independent), and, if so, in what language should that then be? English seems the most logical choice (Esperanto isn't big enough). And having two English versions (actually three, if you count the 'simple English' version) seems too much. So this version should reflect the average view in the world and not just the English speaking part of it. Right? I'm sure this has already been discussed somewhere, but where?

A language independent encyclopedia has no meaning. Any useful information presented in any language is necessarily biased toward the way of thinking of those who use that language.

And I don't think it's appropriate to refer to other languages in an attempt to define the "proper" meaning of English words. Maybe in other languages, "America" refers to the Americas, and maybe in other languages, it's taught that the Americas is only one continent. I really don't know. I know that in English, we have an accepted meaning to the terms, and if they don't match other languages, maybe we should leave it that way. Native speakers of other languages would be (and often are) terribly offended if it were implied that they must change their use of a word because it doesn't match that of English speakers. I see no reason we shouldn't feel the same. It's not reasonable to warp our language to meet someone else's definitions.

For example, German has no distinction between "many" and "much", but there's a clear distinction in English. You could argue that the English way is "wrong", because most languages (I believe) don't have the distinction, but people would call you silly (at best). German has only "viele", but English has "much" and "many". German (perhaps) has only "Amerika". English has "America" and "the Americas". It makes no more sense to adopt the German use of "America" than it does to adopt the German's consolidated "much/many". You cannot avoid bias. It's better for the German speakers to have their encyclopedia and the English speakers to have theirs. Trying to suit everyone results in a product which suits no one. -- Dpark 04:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference between 'many' and 'much' is something purely linguistic (which, by the way also exists in German; 'viele' and 'viel'). Like the differences between American and English English. But the difference between 'America' and 'Americas' can be seen as a statement about a fact outside language; whether it's one or two continents. Anyway, can there really not be a language-independent encyclopedia? By this I mean one that isn't biased by linguistic oddities, in which language follows fact in stead of the other way around. Putting it that way, I now think Esperanto (or another 'synthetic' language) would probably be the best choice for that. But that leaves the problem that hardly anyone speaks it (me included). DirkvdM 09:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Maybe my German is rustier than I thought. I remember trying to explainthe difference between "much" and "many" to some Germans, though. Maybe I just lacked an understanding of the equivalent structure in German. Anyway, I have no doubt that there are other similar situations. They are eluding me right now, though.

The problem with saying that whether America is one or two continents is that there is no concensus. Look at the continent page. Look at the German continent page. The French one. None of them give a hard number of continents. For whatever reason, geographers cannot seem to decide what constitutes a continent any more. I remember learning the 7, and later learning about "Eurasia" being a single continent. I'm pretty sure everyone I know was taught the same thing, but I can't guarantee it. But if we can't even agree on how many continents there are, how are we to assert that it's "wrong" to refer to North and South America as two separate continents? I don't think we can make calls like that. Again, that kind of thing is best left to the continent talk page. Until that debate is decided, I feel it's better to give the accepted opinion in English-speaking countries.

And yes, I firmly believe that there's no such thing as a language-independent encyclopedia (or anything else in written form). Debates like this show us why it doesn't really work. Esperanto isn't especially neutral, either. It's more than just a little Euro-centric. -- Dpark 14:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, is this view of America consisting of two continents a North American thing or is this view also held in the British Isles? DirkvdM 06:45, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

British and Irish usage would generally be to see them as distinct continents. No-one much uses the "large contiguous landmass" defn, otherwise not only are Europe and Asia the same continent, so's Africa (though there's a nano-article here for that too, admittedly. "Scientifically", one might argue that continental plates are more significant. And the whole terminology of "the Americas" rather assumes the plurality, no? Alai 07:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue at hand. Is it one or two continents and should it therefore be singular or plural? DirkvdM 09:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

The standard in America, and I believe other English-speaking countries as well, is to teach that there are 7 continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North America, South America, and Antarctica. More recently, it's been common to teach that Europe and Asia can potentially be regarded as a single continent (Eurasia), but still teaching the 7 continents first. Webster's still says there's 7 continents. -- Dpark 04:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dpark just reverted almost all of my changes (with no comment here), saying they're confusing. But my purpose was in part to make the text clearer, incorporating the ideas in this discussion. I won't be so childish to revert it again straight away, so could others maybe comment on it? For one, I think my version of the beginning, about the differences between languages, is easier to read. Then there's the rings of the Olympic flag. That they "represent the five parts of the world which embrace healthy competition" is indeed taken form that article, but it sounds downright silly to me. I read elsewhere in Misplaced Pages that they represent the five inhabited continents, and that sounds a lot better and it is in keeping with the lists at the bottom of the olympic flag article. And why drop "as one continent"? That clarifies the point (and clarification was my main purpose). I now agree with the first two reverts in the second paragraph (although I corrected the doubling of the 'the'). But the last sentence is just wrong if you ask me. The western hemisphere is the half west of the prime meridian. So to say that (the) America(s) is the western hemisphere is nonsense, it just happens to be the major occupant of it. The western hemisphere article gets this wrong too (I'll start a discussion about that there too). DirkvdM 20:14, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Fine, we can discuss my reverts. I certainly didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sorry if I did.

The term Americas is often used to refer collectively to North and South America ...

This seems to imply that "Americas" may also be used for another meaning, which is not the case as far as I know.

... America, which is often used to designate the United States of America. However, it is often considered to be one continent, so in many languages the singular form is used.

I felt that this was somewhat confusing. It seems to me to be less clear than the other text in explaining the contexts in which America refers to the United States and when America refers to the Americas (the contexts being primarily English vs. non-English). Think the information is pretty much the same, but I felt it read a little less smoothly, and was a little less clear.

The use of the term America to refer to the the Americas as a whole is also found in English in reference to the pre-Columbian or early Columbian era, such as in the common phrase "Christopher Columbus discovered America".

This actually just got cut in the shuffle. I've put it back now. It actually does flow better.

... Olympic flag represent the five inhabited continents. A single ring represents all of the Americas as one continent.

After finding this pdf on the Olympic site, I've reverted to your text. I'll change Olympic flag as well.

And because, apart from a slice of Africa and Europe, it's the only major landmass in the Western Hemisphere, that term is also sometimes used.

I'm not going to debate the meaning of "Western Hemisphere" here. There's nothing geographical that divides the Earth into eastern and western hemispheres. I'll just refer you to Bartleby and Dictionary.com I also added a comment on Talk:Western Hemisphere

-- Dpark 17:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blarg, apparently originally Pierre de Coubertin didn't specify that the rings represented continents. He actually did say "parts of the world" (albeit in French). The continent thing is a more recent interpretation. Whatever. I've updated the Olympic flag page to clarify the modern interpretation, and I'll just leave that alone for now. -- Dpark 17:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the comment I placed here yesterday has disappeared!? Well, I'll write it again then. We seem to disagree on what is clear writing, and there's hardly a way to resolve that, so I'll leave it. I corrected the bit about the Olympic flag and moved 'as a continent' to the front. As for the western hemisphere, I'm fine with your edit as long as the meaning is expained in that article. Let's continue that discussion there.

I just edited your edit because the one continent view is more common in languages other than English. And it looks strange to speak of one continent and still use the plural form. I'm still in doubt about the implicit assumption at the beginning that North and South America are two continents. It is one thing to use the plural form Americas in the English language (implicating two continents) but another to implicitly state that there actually are two continents in the 'real world'. So I'm in favour of dropping 'the continents of'. That doesn't really change the meaning of the text and avoids the issue. DirkvdM 07:13, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I removed "the continents of" and reorganized the article somewhat. I also added info about the single vs. multiple continent debate. See if you like the changes. Feel free to discuss any you don't like, and improve where ever you want/can. -- Dpark 22:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good now. I just shortened it here and there for legibility (hope we won't go head to head again over what constitutes clear writing). Just one thing. You say "Traditionally in English-speaking countries, North and South America are considered two continents." But at the beginning of the article it says that the introduction of the plural is relatively recent. I always thought that at first the term America was used for the continent, then the USA became so important for many cultures that it came to represent the entire continent (pars pro totem), so it got the name of the continent (totem pro pars?) (also helped by the problem of what to call the inhabitants of the country). So an ambiguity arose that was resolved by using the plural for the Continent(s). And maybe the notion of two continents was even inspired by this. And that would be very interesting. Language is supposed to represent and thus reflect the world we perceive. But in this case (if this is the case) our perception (or that of English speakers) was influenced by the development of the language. So the perception reflects the language in stead of the other way around. That would be odd. Might there be more instances of this phenomenon? (I have a feeling there are many.) Anyway, to come back to the question: how traditional is the perception of (the) America(s) as two continents? DirkvdM 10:17, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with your legibility changes, but I don't disagree with any of them strongly enough to revert them. They're fine.

As for how "traditional" the two-continent view is, I guess that's debateable. I wasn't especially fond of the "recent" tag added at the beginning (especially since it replaced "less ambiguous"), but rather than revert, I simply added back the "less ambiguous" modifier. I'm fairly certain that the use of "the Americas", and the idea that the Americas are two continents has been around for quite some time. The National Geographic Society recognizes seven continents. So far as I know, this has always been its stance, since 1888 (when it was founded). I believe this reflects the American opinion since (at least) then, all the way up to now. If nothing else, I'd say that the National Geographic view has had a significant effect on all English-speaking countries, so assuming the 7-continent view goes all the way back to 1888, I'd bet it spread to the rest of the English-speaking world (any parts which didn't share the view, anyway) at least a century ago.

-- Dpark 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that 1888 is fairly recent, well at least recent enough not to constitute a tradition. If for 400 years before that the singular name (and the one continent concept) were in use, I'd say that is more like tradition. But is that the case? DirkvdM 08:52, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite it, feel free to, but I think it's worth pointing out that it's been used for over a century. It's not like it came about in the 1980s. Phrase it however you like, though. -- Dpark 15:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming Theories: the Amorica (legend) gag

I'm not especially interested in trying to find a single theory for Misplaced Pages to put forward, at least not if there isn't a single widely accepted one, but the last sentence in this one strikes me as very, very odd:

Yet another theory states that Vespucci named America after Amorica, the continent of ancient Greek and Roman myth. It is assumed that the Italian Vespucci would have been familiar with Roman myth. Early explorers often believed they were rediscovering islands and continents of myth or religion, such as the idea that South America was the Garden of Eden or 'Earthly Paradise'. After Vespucci's death, people forgot where the name America came from, so they changed his name to Amerigo to explain the naming of America.

Is there any question of Vespucci's first name? If not, that last sentence is very strange, and extremely misleading. If so, then it's still very strange, and needs to be explained. Comments? -- Dpark 00:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted that line. -- Dpark 23:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)::Of all Misplaced Pages User:Dpark was the only one who expressed any doubts whatsoever about this bogus misinformation. The blow-by-blow description of how it was inserted into Misplaced Pages may be seen at Talk:Amorica (legend). Good job, Dpark! --Wetman 8 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

The U.S.A. is not the America

I just changed Muke's edit again. I hope this doesn't turn into an edit war, but I feel confident enough to do the edit. First, the ambiguity was already stated in the same sentence and the link only pointed to a dictionary entry that also just restates what the sentence already states. I agree with changing 'politically charged' to 'politically incorrect' (though I'm not sure if the incorrectness is political - it's a geographical issue isn't it?). But I think I can safely state that calling the USA America is incorrect. DirkvdM July 6, 2005 07:56 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your edit, the current phrasing appears fair. But saying it's incorrect on some absolute level is POV. As mentioned in the removed dictionary link, "America" is both the country and the continent. Indeed, in most contexts outside of things like "Columbus discovered America", the continent is referred to as the Americas, and America by itself refers exclusively to the country. (Try Google:America and see how long it takes till you come up with a result where 'America' means 'the Americas'.)

Now, it may be that some people may feel that the sense of 'America' as the continent is the only proper sense, but this is 1) a matter of prescriptivism, not a matter of absolute right or wrong, and 2) most likely motivated by offense taken at 'America' referring mainly to the U.S. Promoting language change on the grounds of avoiding giving offence is the most usual meaning of what is politically correct (which in non-technical senses often has little to do with actual politics).

At any rate, saying that the United States of America can't call themselves America, because America is originally and properly the continent, is like saying the United Mexican States can't call themselves Mexico, because Mexico is originally and properly the city (which it is). Expecting language to work like logic is fallacious; language doesn't work that way. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 7 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this point of view, America is a continent, I am from Mexico and in schools all over the spanish and portuguese speaker nations the term America refers exclusively to the continent. If you want to insist that America is two continents and then you decide to call them North America and South America for the georgraphy then you have to include Mexico and possibly Guatemala and Belice in that called North America. The contrdiction comes from the name USA that is United States of America, if you want to insist and say that America is not a continent, then USA should be modified to USNA, i.e. United States of North America TO BE CONSISTENT. In my opinion the problem comes as well from the fact that USA does not have a proper name for their country, USA is only describing where they are and some of their politics. But things would be different if they would not kill all native americans or if they would be a mixed race with the native americans, then they could be United States Navajoes or Apache Republic of North America. Carlos Chavez

Ouch! Expecting language to work like logic is fallacious. I strongly resent that, but at the same time I have to admit it's true. At least for natural languages. A language is supposed to express meaning and without logic everything is meaningless. But language necessarily evolves. New findings disprove the logic of the old terminology (examples abound in science). But the old language will persist in everyday speech. However, in this case there are two 'logics' namely those of (the) America(s) being one or two continents, either of which can be said to be true. In the 'one continent' logic the name 'America' is already used for that, so logic dictates it cannot be used for something else. I suppose that using the name 'America' for the country comes from the habit of North Europeans to think about North America when they talked about America. For the Spanish however (and therefore in the Spanish language) the focus was on South America. In that language the name 'America' continued to mean the (one) continent, probably because there wasn't one single country that came to represent the Spanish colonies (although in the case of North America there's also Canada). There's just no simple answer here, so in that sense you're right. Language doesn't quite follow logic. DirkvdM July 7, 2005 07:14 (UTC)

I don't mind that the article says that calling the U.S.A., America, is politically incorrect. However, by usage it is commonly accepted albeit a misnomer (like calling Native Americans, Indians). The usage is frowned upon but there isn't a perfect alternative.

Now this I found interesting- all the English speaker's I talk to (whether from the U.S., U.K., Ireland, etc.) all understand "America" as referring to the U.S.A. Because for sake of simplicity English speaker don't always want to say, the United States of America, each time they just refer to it as America. Most people I talk to from countries where English is not the primary language (ie. Germany, Spain, etc.) all believe that it is, in fact, a mistake to call the U.S.A., America. Many of the neighboring countries all understand that America most commonly refers to the USA whether they agree with it or not (Canadian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.) Since people rarely need to refer to the entire continents of America, they specify the country of topic- eg. "Guatemala, Honduras, Aruba, El Salvador, Brazil, Canda".

Now here's the ironic part of it all, to clarify to most foreigners that they are talking about the U.S.A. and not the other North, South, or Central American countries, they refer to it as "the US" or "The States" even though Mexico's actual name is, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, or United States of Mexican. Most people today, everywhere around the world in fact, refer to the USA as either the US or the United States. The term "(the) America" to refer to the U.S.A. typically sounds old-fashioned and commonly parodied only when referring to immigrants arriving to the country in the 19th and early 20th century. So is calling the U.S.A. the U.S. or United States much more specific? Well, to be argued- but there's not a good alternative now, and I don't think anyone soon is going to rename it something neutral like.. "WestLand" and some people will probably also have problems with that :P--Acefox 8 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Well there is a perfect alternative to '(the) America' to refer to the U.S.A. and that is, ehm ... the U.S.A. (or do I miss your point?). And if you shorten that to 'the U.S.', as many people do, it's actually shorter than '(the) America' (three syllables in stead of four). I suppose you mean the problem of what to call the inhabitants, if not '(the) American' and that is a problem. Some alternatives are given in Alternative words for American, but most of these are just plain ugly. I usually use 'U.S. citizens' or '(someone) form the U.S.', but that's awkward. I suppose 'Statesider' is the best alternative; it isn't awkward to pronounce, it isn't ambiguous and most people will know what is meant by it.

The point of the 'United States of Mexico' is often used, and in various ways at that, but it's rather lame because people only learn about this through these discussions; nobody refers to Mexico by that name. Sort of like words that only crossword addicts know because they're only used in crossword puzzles.

Apropos ...the entire continents of America.... That's one way of putting it :) . DirkvdM July 8, 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is no one calls citizens of the United States, "United Statesian" or "United States of American". You can call people from Germany, Germans (even though they refer to themselves as Deutch- and the country's official name Deutchland); or people from Japan, Japanese (even though they refer to it as Nipon in English spelling). What then is wrong with referring to people from the U.S.A. as Americans? It's not 100% correct, but 9 out of 10 people will probably know exactly what you're talking about. This isn't about being arrogant- it's just using a term that most people will understand.--Acefox 16:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps English-speaking readers will feel a bit offended by this, but reading some of the definitions in this article and in this discussion, I feel I must point out some things.

First of all, as stated above, America (the continent) is not USA. Some of you might argue that they have the same name, (such as NY state, and NY city) but this is incorrect. The name of America, refering to the nation of USA began to be widely used, mainly by USA residents (which is an important topic) in the first half of the XX century, in a way to increase the reach of its nation Cultural Imperialism and supremacy over the American continent. The reasoning behind this is, "if other people think/say they also live in it will be easier for them to be assimilated to our culture". Another issue raised with this is that all lands in the American continent are "America" - thus making the taking of that land more "natural", as the US have done with Puerto Rico and more blatlantly with (New) Mexico.

Second, the article is terribly wrong at its very first sentence; America is not divided into two parts, but three. North, Central and South America. Central America is composed by all the Caribbean Isles, and continental mass south of Mexico and North of Venezuela.

Third, as implied from the above paragraphs, the term "The Americas", although grammatically correct, is a geographical and political fallacy, in an imperialist attempt to subdue the third world countries to a "mother country".

When adressing two parts of the continent, one still uses the singular form, which serves to conclude that "America" is a term that should be used in the singular, and only to refer the continent. ("The poverty in Central and South America has ...") We have an example of the same logic in Europe: All of us are aware of the differences between Eastern European and Western European countries. Does that mean that there are two Europes? The continent is one, and thus its name should be always used in the singular. The Far East and the Middle East indicate the presence of "two Asias"? ~~LtDoc~~

And reffering to Muke Tever´s comment, a huge mistake has been made. He claims that "in most contexts outside of things like "Columbus discovered America", the continent is referred to as the Americas, and America by itself refers exclusively to the country." + - It shows an obvious non-neutral POV, expressing his opinion trying to make it sound like "general knowledge" something accepted worldwide, which couldnt be more untruthful. In Latin America, and in most "Latin Europe" ("non-English Europe") the term ´America´ refers to the continent as a whole, not as the nation of USA. The term ´The Americas´ is actually not used at all, since the continent is one, and whole. He tries to back this information by says that google will only point to pages where means the nation and mean the continent. He fails to see to see that most internet pages are in the US domains, thus reflecting the same "politically incorrect" views of US residents.~~Lt Doc~~

I was speaking about the word 'America' in English. I won't deny that the cognate of 'America' in the Spanish and Portuguese of Latin America and the languages of "non-English Europe" will most likely act differently, but this is the English Misplaced Pages, and we use English words here. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

North Europeans and US citizens used America interchangibly for the US, because they thought only the US was worth calling America as a nation. For them only a country composed of light white skinned people mattered, because in the racist age in which that usage first appeared (the 19th century mostly) brown american peoples were thought unworthy of consideration as sovereign nations. Indeed many considered their independence not the coming of their political maturity but only the passage of their suzerainty from a weakened tutor (Spain) to another more capable (The UK or the USA). Salvadorjo 04:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bkonrad just referred to this talk page in his edit, which I reverted. So let's talk. I suppose you referred to this section when you said there is considerable disagreement about the correct usage of America. I hope you've gone beyond the superficial glance you speak of. This discussion resulted in the text as it was (and now is again), so if you're referring to this, you should agree with it or comment. To get you going; How can South America not be part of America? DirkvdM 09:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how you get "How can South America not be part of America?" from my edit. Your edit seems to assert that the claim that the colloquial english language usage of the term "America" to refer to the USA (without qualification) IS politically incorrect. First, colloquial usage is what it is regardless of whether some people consider it to be incorrect, politically or otherwise. Second, it is almost inherent in the nature of political incorrectness that not everyone agrees with the assertion of incorrectness. Hence my edit to claim that "some people consider" the usage to be politically incorrect. And I really think the wikilink should be to the entire phrase politically incorrect, rather than leaving incorrect unlinked. older≠wiser 22:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so you're Bkonrad. Confusing to go by two names. Just as it's confusing for the term America to have two meanings. My point was, If the USA is America, then South America is apparently not part of America. And that's weird. I don't care about the 'political' bit. I claim it is linguistically incorrect. America first meant the entire continent (or continents if you will). Then, in northern Europe and GB in particular, it came to mean the part of it that was most important to people there. Normally, something like that could lead to a change in the meaning of a word, possibly causing problems if not everyone follows (which is always the case initially), but eventually the language will change and America could justifiably be used for the USA. However, there is a perpetual problem here, namely that the term is also used for something different and especially confusing is that the two meanings overlap (America is part of America?). This could only be changed by changing the name of the other thing, but all that's been done in that respect is that some have started calling it the America's, but that's still confusing (America is part of North America? How can the whole be part of a part of it?). And South America hasn't changed names, so there's still a problem. The result would be that South America is not part of America, which is logically wrong and therefore linguistically incorrect. About your last remark: there is no article on incorrect, but I suppose that's not what you mean. It's a result of the presentation with politically in brackets. DirkvdM 08:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be best to rewrite the introductory sentences altogether. They are rather long and convoluted. You seem to be questioning a fundamental slipperiness of human language. It is not logical, never was and never will be. To baldly assert that the way hundreds of millions of native english speakers use a term is simply "incorrect" seems rather audacious and contentious. However, an assertion that "some consider it to be incorrect", while perhaps a bit weaselly, is pretty incontrovertible. I'm not sure what you're saying about there not being an article on incorrect. I'm saying that it is less deceptive to readers to leave the link as "politically incorrect", rather than "politically incorrect". older≠wiser 02:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, natural languages are not logical in many senses, but that's no excuse to throw in the towel. I agree that the introductory sentence (it's actually just one sentence!) is rather contorted. The reason can be found hereabove; it's the result of long negotiations (now you know why oficial documents are often incomprehensible). Alright then, how about this;

The Americas refers collectively to North, Central and South America, as a relatively recent and less ambiguous alternative to the name America, which may refer to either the Americas or the USA. The former useage is now often considered archaic in English, but still in use in other languages, where the Americas is often considered to form a single continent. The use of the term America for the United States of America in English and colloquially in other languages is both politically incorrect (it may be seen as cultural imperialism) and illogical (eg, it would place South America outside America). But this use led to the emergence of the term Americas to take away the ambiguity (in English), if not the illogicality.

It's easier to read now, although still a bit contorted. The last sentence might be dropped. Note that a further discussion can be found in the second paragraph of the next section. DirkvdM 10:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but I still disagree with making the bald assertion that the term IS politically incorrect and illogical. It should simply indicate that some consider it to be so. older≠wiser 00:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the ambiguity was the origin of the emergence of the term the Americas (I assume), so that needs to be mentioned and the illogical consequence that South America is not in America is certainly worth a mention too, I'd say. Which pretty much leads to the above. Except for the politically incorrect bit. Someone else put that in, so I left it in. So that might be dropped now. But not the last sentence, in retrospect. DirkvdM 09:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No one says that South America in not in America. There are somewhat contradictory/ambiguous usages of the term, but saying South America in not in America just seems a bizarrely unnatural application of logic. older≠wiser 00:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point. Or am I missing your point now? No one says that South America in not in America. What do you mean by that? I'm using a reasoning ad absurdum. I assume that something is correct, follow that through, end up with an absurdity and conclude that the assunption was not correct. Of course I next have to bow to the masses who have already made the absurdity commonplace (but I can still bitch about it). I've studied philosophy with a specialisation in Logic, so you'd better think your next move through .... :) DirkvdM 07:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it is unwarranted to baldly assert that any particular popular usage is "incorrect" or illogical based on some facile sophistry. older≠wiser 13:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Facile sophistry? Reasoning ad absurdum is one of the cornerstones of Logic and therefore of Science! Well, maybe that's overdoing it a bit, but it's certainly a very accepted method. DirkvdM 16:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

But what you are doing is not Reductio ad absurdum, but rather simply shifting frames of reference. In one context, the term America refers to one thing and in another context, the term has a different meaning. Used in context, the term is not especially problematic from a logical perspective. What remains problematic is that some people seem to view using the term to refer to the U.S. as representing some sort of cultural imperialism. older≠wiser 16:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The cultural imperialism is covered by the 'politically incorrect' bit (maybe this explanation should be added to it - I have done that above). About having two meanings for 'America', I'd say it's that which inherently shifts the frame of reference (although this is linguistic nitpicking). It is true that most people will have no misunderstandings when using the term 'America' (although I once heard someone accidentally refer to the southern US states as 'South America'). But my point is that having two meanings for one word is wrong from a Logical point of view. And that is what the term 'illogical' refers to. DirkvdM 09:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DirkvdM, and disagree to Bkonrad that the use of the term "America" referring to the nation of the US is illogical. That is beyond dispute; just follow the thought. America (continent) is divided in three parts, Northern, Central and Southern. A part of the North American subcontinent (therefore a part of America - continent) is the nation of US. Therefore, the nation of US is part of America, the continent. Calling the US "America" is saying that America is part of America, which is illogical. And also very pollitically incorrect, yes. And also insulting to any American (one who lives in the continent of America) that is a non-US resident. What Bkonrad states afterwards, however, makes perfect sense, that the cultural imperialism of the US causes problems with the terminology. (Ive already made a few comments above this, if interested, please read).

As for calling the name of the nation of the U.S. "America" being incorrect, I totally agree. Even if it sounds harsh to english speakers, to non-english speakers is a blunt attempt to colonize them culturally. If you add up all the people in the world, one will come to the conclusion that most people use the term meaning the continent, not the country. Another thing that increases the "incorrectabilty" of the use is that the cultural imperialism imposed by the U.S. is such that it "forces" people to acknoldge them as "Americans" (i.e. citzens of U.S.), thus implying in its use that those who are "american" (born in the U.S.) are the owners of "America" (the continent), that all of America (continent) is the place of rule of americans (born in the U.S.).

I was born in Latin America. Im no more or no less american than any one who has been (or ever will be) born in this continent as well.~~LtDoc~~

Misplaced Pages does not advocate for "correct" or "logical" use of the language. It reports what is. Period. If you can present a source for an opinion and attribute the opinion, that is fine, but to baldly label an extremely common usage of a term as incorrect or illogical is pushing a POV and is contrary to Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. older≠wiser 03:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

True, strictly speaking, but do you truly believe everything in Misplaced Pages is 'totally sourced'? By that I mean that no interpretation whatsoever takes place. Which would come down to literally copying texts. And doing that whilst not violating copyright would severely cripple Misplaced Pages. But I'm diverging. Of course it isn't easy to determine how much interpretation is acceptable. But if the source is Logic and the interpretation is the application of the rules of Logic then that's hardly POV. DirkvdM 09:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

do you truly believe everything in Misplaced Pages is 'totally sourced'? Of course not, but it is the ideal, and in cases where things are contentious, it is even more important than for presenting less controversial facts. Your argument based on logic borders on original research. I don't dispute that some, or even many, people find the usage to be incorrect or illogical. However, it is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to state without qualification that such widespread and commonly accepted usage IS either incorrect or illogical. The best we can do is state that the usage of the term is contentious and describe the various points of view without presenting any of them as being less correct or less logical than others. older≠wiser 14:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

But if the source is Logic and the interpretation is the application of the rules of Logic then that's hardly POV — Applying the rules of logic to language is a form of prescriptivism and thus POV by definition. (A common example of logic-based prescriptivism is the injunction against double negatives.) BTW, I was just reading recently an inaugural address by JFK where 'America' is the US, and 'the Americas' is the supercontinent, and he even speaks of 'citizens of America' with the meaning 'U.S. citizens' (caught my eye, as alternative words for American mentions 'citizen of' construction explicitly, as an ambiguous thing). —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 16:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I refer to Formal Logic (maybe that should be made a bit clearer), which is just about reasoning. It doesn't care if the assumptions are correct, just if the reasoning is. The prescriptive bits here (the assumptions, called propositions in logic or axioms in Mathematics) are that America is the U.S.A., that the Americas are made up of three parts, two of which are North and South America and, lastly, that America (the USA) is located in North America. This cannot be true. It leads to a falsum. At least, if you apply the rule that South-X is part of X (a subset). Which seems obvious. So there is something wrong with the assumptions (prescriptions, propositions, axioms, whatever). They contradict themselves.

By the way, the double negative you mention is no problem in logic. They cancel each other out. The double negative article states they don't. But then it's about something different, like 'I can't get no sleep'. Logically that means 'I sleep all the time'. But the article says such things are either wrong (which is prescriptive) or acceptable in the way they're meant (which is descriptive). But that's a different matter. DirkvdM 12:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that is what you mean by "formal logic", then you prove nothing with your argument except that words can sometimes have more than one meaning. Big deal. You can pick just about any word in the dictionary and make a similar argument. Beyond that, your proposition that "America is the U.S.A." is unsupportable. It should more correctly be framed as the U.S.A. is sometimes referred to (in a metonymical manner) as America. older≠wiser 23:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That U.S.A. is America (in the way you say it is sometimes used) is an assumption (the definition that leads to the coming about of the term 'the Americas'). Following that through, one reaches a conclusion that cannot be right, so there's something wrong. It's illogical. That's the reasoning. DirkvdM 07:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

First, applying logic to a figurative use of language seems rather futile and pointless. Second, your proposition equating USA and America is mistaken. It is not an IS relationship, but rather a figure of speech in which the larger entity stands in for a prominent portion of that entity. The U.S.A is in America (and for good or ill, is probably the most prominent aspect of America for many). Many people casually use the term to refer to the part. Applying standards of logic (whether formal, or whatever it is you think you are doing) really doesn't prove much of anything. older≠wiser 00:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The US, America, The Big One, wahtever you call it, should just come up with a name! it is the only country which has no name! I just hope one of the candidates for 2008 thiks about that. ps.: i'm just being sarcastic ;)

I believe this discussion has an obvious historic explanation. After the American continent was discovered by Christopher Colombus, Martín Waldseemüller, a german cartographist, wrote Cosmographiae Introductio, a book that suggested that the new landmass was not the India, and that it was a new continent that was to be called América, after Americo Vespucci. However, the book and the term took use in most of Europe, but not in Spain or Portugal. That is the reason why, the Spaniard collonies were some of them called Indias even until their independence.

The English colonies were called American Collonies, and that term did not mean conflict at all, since they were clearly meant to be the British American Collones. However, when the U.S.A. got it' independence from Britain, the new country kept the term America to refer to itself. At the point of U.S.A.'s independence none of the southern spanishs collonies was independent, they also had names as New Spain, and General Captaincy of Colombia, and the idea of Ameria as a continent and of the people of the collonies as Americans, was not spread at all.

With this scenario, it seemed rather reasonable to name the new country United States of America, which describes it's political organization and situation. However this name was fit when it was created, it did not have any reference to the national self of the country, as for example Mexican United States has one.

When the Spanish and Portuguese collonies got their independence, the leaders of the rebellion reinvindicated the name of americans for themselves. This people were in touch with the ideas from the French revolution. The notion of America as a continent and not as the U.S.A was widely spread amongst the European, with the exception of Spain and Portugal and more recently of the British, who had already established tight commercial links with it's former collonies. The new countries adopted all names that made a clear reference to their national identity, yet having all being freed by similar movements, they all considered themselves american countries.

This two notions of America continued through time, but it is clear that the term America was originaly meant as a continent and not as a country. When U.S.A. got it's name the term America in it was a reference to it's geographic position as understood by the English. This clearly explains that the use of the term America to refer to the United States of America is essencialy incorrect. This does not pose that much of a problem, since it is rather easy to say United States or U.S. or U.S.A. if you don't want to say the rather long complete name. But when it comes to the demonym, an alternative to american must be made, and I think the most correct would be unitedstatean.

A more radical thing to do would be to change the country's name, the originally proposed Columbian, would be fine to me it's still present in District of Columbia. But it is hard to see this happening, yet it would solve the problem that the current name gives the country no identity at all.

The suggestion of the term Americas is wrought in this confusion is also quite wrong, it doesn't make sense to divide the continent in two. North, Central, and South Americas have always been considered subcontinents. Although North America has the word America in it's name it clearly is not an America by itself, the term clearly refers to a Northern part of the larger America. We never refer to Subsaharian Africa as part of the Africas for example. It would make more sense to say that the word America refers both to the country and to the continent, but as I have already said, that is also wrong.

Please do not think I mean that U.S.A. doesn't have a national identity, of course it has one. The only thing I have supported is that that identity is not stated in it's name, and that a demonym should somehow refer to it. The fundamental point for this article is that America is a continent and not a country, and that therefore this article should be renamed. (201.114.91.43 01:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Misleading?

The article contains the following sentences that strike me as misleading: "In contrast to the rest of the continent, the majority of Canadian and United States residents are white, English-speaking, and of predominantly European ancestry. The native American Indian tribes of the region have mostly been absorbed, displaced, or wiped out and now form small minorities in these two countries." Although both sentences are true statements about Canada and the U.S., they misleadingly imply that the majority of people in the rest of the countries in America are not of predominantly European ancestry. My understanding is that this varies quite a bit from country to country. For example, a large majority of Mexicans claim at least some Native ancestry, but in some of the South American countries (Argentina particularly comes to mind) the population is almost exclusively of European descent. However, I don't have the information at hand to provide a more accurate statement, so I'm noting this in hopes that someone more knowledgeable will provide a correction. Russ Blau (talk) 11:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed that, but see also top of next entry. DirkvdM 20:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am mexican and also caucasian so it is wrong to place that only such diversity exusts only in Canada and the United States, when the rest of the nations in this continent have also immigrant roots. SqueakBox

alphabetisation and then some

The issue of the previous entry was avoided by largely removing it. But now it reads The majority of the American people live in Latin America. Most of Latin America is Spanish-speaking, with Portuguese-speaking Brazil as the major exception. Canada and the United States are the countries most culturally, politically, and economically separate from Latin America. Ehm, ... Canada and the US are the only countries outside Latin America, right? So I changed that a bit, adding some of the previous version as well. How are these countries politically different from Latin American countries? I removed that. Feel free to put it back, but then explain.

Roy da Vinci (RAAAH!) added an interresting point about the US treating Latin America as its back yard. But this needs some more explaining. During the 19th century there was sort of an agreement (I don't know how much this was 'official') between the USA and Europe that their foreign influences should not cause any conflict; the USA would stay out of Eurasia if Europe stayed out of Latin America. WWII changed that, though. And now the USA are everywhere. And was it just 'southern Latin America' (and what is that?), not the whole of Latin America? Also, I'm not sure if this is the right article to point this out, though I can't think of a better one.

Roy da Vinci also alphabetised the nationalities of the colonists of European descent, but that didn't seem to make sense to me, so I reverted that, so he reverted that. It's a very minor thing, but that doesn't mean I'll give way :) . It seems to make more sense to me to put them in an order of importance (quantitatively speaking, that is). So I'd say Spanish, British, Irish, French, Portuguese, Italian, German and Dutch. Notice my 'modesty' in moving the Dutch way to the back of the list. But more seriously, I'm not quite sure about the order, but it would be enlightening to mention this, so not just to give the list, but also to say in what order they are.

I assume not all blacks are descendants from slaves. There must be more recent immigrants from Africa (such as Eddy Murphy in 'Coming to America' :) ). Or is this group too small to be worth mentioning?

What is 'from the Balkan' in one word? Balkanese? I circumvented the issue in my edit.

DirkvdM 20:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Latin America usually does not include Guyana, Suriname, Bermuda, half the island nations and dependencies of the Caribbean and sometimes Belize. I rather doubt that anyone even seriously considers St. Pierre et Miquelon as "Latin America"... Tomer 03:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

True, not all countries outside the US and Canada are predominantly 'latin language-speaking'. And usually I prefer to stay close to the literal meaning of a word, but here it's not just that most people understand Latin America to mean Central and South America. Consider this. You'd be hard put to find an English-speaking country where only English is spoken. Still, you'd call even the US an English-speaking country, right? (Well, the UK, then...) Similarly, it isn't strange to call the part of America that's predominantly Latin-speaking Latin America. Also, you wouldn't call Quebec part of Latin America. The Latin America article backs this up. DirkvdM 07:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. It's a non-issue to me. What you were referring to above, btw, is the Monroe Doctrine I believe. Tomer 20:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Problems of definition

I spoke with a geographer, and he said, "Continents are fungible."

And someone posted a lengthy and informative note on my user page, which I've moved to User talk:4.18.44.157.

I daresay that the US English usage of America to refer "the United States of America" is an irritant to (what US folks would call) "non-Americans". As in How dare you say we're not Americans, you European white trash colonial imperialist bahstahds!

I hope to capture the flavor of their discontent, and balance that with how America is actually used in the media, in books and in private conversation. Not being a professional linguist, surely anything I do by myself will fail to hit the mark. But if we work on this together, I think we'll find that "all of us" are smarter than "any of us". Uncle Ed 16:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In the meaning of America as a continent, US citizens are Americans. They're just not the only ones (by far). DirkvdM 08:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Two Continents

Ya'll need to realize North America and South America are two seperate continents. Are Europe, Asia, and Africa one big continent just because they're connected? No. Don't forget that North and South America were also seperated in prehistory, and sorta "crashed" into each other. And Central America is not a continent, it's southern North America.

Hi! I would agree with that (i.e., interpretations are various) and, not only am I acting with this mind, I have stated as much: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Continents.2C_subregions.2C_and_Template:Region. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed as well. See North America, though this is not universally held as a Costa Rican editor bitterly railed against the idea of Central America being part of North America. Not only geographically is this so but politically as well, SqueakBox 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope sorry, it is all a single continent. Even the Olympic Comitee places things as 5 continents. ElChompiras

Mention of "America" in the ancient classic's literature

A continent west of the Atlantic ocean is mentioned by Homer, Plato, Apollodoros, Plutarch, Eratosthenes, Stesichorus, Strabo and more.

Plutarch for example, gives an account of a continent west of Britain in his work Moralia: Volume XII. Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon, chap. 26.

First I will tell you the author of the piece, if there is no objection, who begins after Homer’s fashion with, an isle Ogygian lies far out at sea, distant five days’ sail from Britain, going westwards, and three others equally distant from it, and from each other, are more opposite to the summer visits of the sun; in one of which the barbarians fable that Cronus is imprisoned by Zeus, whilst his son lies by his side, as though keeping guard over those islands and the sea, which they call ‘the Sea of Cronus. The great continent by which the great sea is surrounded on all sides, they say, lies less distant from the other islands, but about five thousand stadia from Ogygia, for one sailing in a rowing-galley; for the sea is difficult of passage and muddy through the great number of currents, and these currents issue out of the great land, and shoals are formed by them, and the sea becomes clogged and full of earth, by which it has the appearance of being solid.

The "great number of currents" can be identified today as the Gulf Stream currents. The distance of five thousand stadia between the continent and Ogygia, is equivalent to 900 kilometers.

Plato in Timaios also mentions a continent west of the Atlantic.

in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

Strabo proposed that Ogygia and Skhería described by Homer in Odyssey were located in the Atlantic Ocean:

For Homer says also: "Now after the ship had left the river-stream of Oceanus"; and "In the island of Ogygia, where is the navel of the sea," going on to say that the daughter of Atlas lives there; and again, regarding the Phaeacians, "Far apart we live in the wash of the waves, the farthermost of men, and no other mortals are conversant with us." Now all these incidents are clearly indicated as being placed in fancy in the Atlantic Ocean. (Strabo, Geography, Book I, 2, 18)

The river-stream of Oceanus quoted by Homer can be identified today as the Gulf Stream.

If Homer was the first writer to mention the continent west of the Atlantic ocean, then America could possibly refer to Homerica.--Odysses 11:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethnology

I'd be interested to know more of what this tidbit, which I have removed, was getting at:

As part of the more prosperous northern world, the United States especially has long overshadowed and attempted to manipulate southern Latin America, most notably during the Cold War.

While this is certainly interesting, it looks more like an editor just read Chomsky's Necessary Illusions and wanted to make a point. I removed it mostly because it is vague: there are some clear ways that the U.S. has "overshadowed" and "attempted to manipulate," and it might be useful to detail this with more information.

Also, the phrase "southern Latin America" is more incorrect than vague. I have a feeling it was meant to refer to Central America.

I also removed it because its current wording makes it seem like a POV generalization. The North/South division of the world doesn't seem to be especially relevant without further explanation . Additionally it seems to blame the economic position of the United States (and, by association, the ENTIRE "Northern World") for its actions during the Cold War, which is altogether too simplistic. ANYTHING the U.S. did during that time period was complex, and mentioning only economic factors leaves out important political motivations. Actually, the way it's worded doesn't make a motivation clear at all, and doesn't even describe what has happened.

NPOV perhaps would be to explain what is known about the States' political, eco. & soc. relationship with Central America during the Cold War, using its economic position when relevant.

In short...Help! That line didn't sink well with me but I don't know enough about this topic to fix it on my own! Markmtl 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of continents in the Western Hemisphere

There is quite obviously a dispute over how many continents to divide "America" into:

1. (no division, actually!) - The Americas are one continent, i.e., America
2. North America & South America

The UN, ever mindful of member states' sensitivities, uses terms like "macro" and "subregion". Their division goes like this:

• Americas
  • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • Caribbean
    • Central America (subregion) - includes Mexico
    • South America
  • Northern America - mostly just Canada & US

Note that each level is sorted alphabetically, L before N in the 2nd level and C, C, S in the 3rd level; just like countries at the lowest level. --Uncle Ed 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the point of the above is; while it is true that interpretations vary regarding whether or not America(s) is one continent or two, with most English sources indicating the latter, it is an incomplete read of the UN scheme. The above reflects more a cultural delineation/grouping, not a geographic one per se. Even Encyclopædia Britannica highlights this distinction in their entry for the Americas: indicating two continents (North and South America) but also distinguishing Latin America from Anglo-America. Also note that the footnote for Northern America (subregion) in the UN scheme leads to the following: "The continent of North America (003) comprises Northern America (021), Caribbean (029), and Central America (013)." Given this and the importance of highlighting this ambiguity regarding usage, I've restored the prior layout. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Western Hemisphere

The first sentence:

America (or the Americas) contains all the land in the Western Hemisphere exclusive of Antarctica, with their associated islands.

is clearly unsatisfactory as a definition:

1. "Western Hemisphere" is ambiguous, as its article states
2. assuming the correct definition, the sentence becomes a circular definition since the relevant part of Western Hemisphere begins

Western Hemisphere (capitalised) is a geopolitical term for the Americas and associated islands

Any suggested improved definition? jnestorius 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the prior edition; I'm all for clarity (which I think the prior edition was), but I do not see how that has been fulfilled through recent edits. I think the prior edition, which harks of definitions/descriptions in other compendiums (Encyclopædia Britannica, for instance) sufficiently delineates what the Americas are comprised of in relation to other geographical features. In addition, I do think that the text, in concert with the locator map and terms wikified, allow for a sufficient expatiation beyond that of a merely literal read of the text (e.g., Antarctica). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to restoring my clarification of "it"? The para now reads:

Throughout the world, America in the singular is often used as a colloquial name for the United States of America; however, the plural Americas (with an 's') is not and is invariably used to refer to the lands and regions of the Western hemisphere. Usage of America to also refer to this collectivity remains fairly common outside of it.

but I don't think what "it" is is clear (in fact, I'm not sure either - I think it refers to the USA). Mucky Duck 11:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the "it" is somewhat intentional: a number of usage guides indicate varied usage regarding America, and "it" (which per earlier in the sentence, more properly refers to 'the collectivity') may mean "fairly common outside of ". I thought about substituting said text with 'overseas' (i.e., outside of the Americas) or the like, but (given my location) of course that's not omniscient and I didn't want to get too specific given the variety of sources regarding usage. Make sense? I'm open to suggestions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but if that is indeed what it means then it is clearly incorrect. The place where the use of the word America to refer to the collectivity is most common is clearly inside of it (ie all of Latin America). I'm even less clear about what is meant here now! Mucky Duck 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? I disagree: various sources indicate that America (without modifier) is (fairly) commonly used in this fashion (i.e., used to refer to the WH outside of it in, say, Europe) and again by those in the Americas outside of the USA, but it is most commonly used to refer to the USA inside of it and still by those outside of it ... which is elaborated in the next paragraph. It's all about nuances. I think the current ed sufficiently summarises the situation without hair-splitting ... which is better the purview (though contentiously, I might add) of Use of the word American. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm hair splitting - I really don't think it's clear what it is trying to say and what I'm trying to do is make it clear what that is (and I realise that my edit was wrong - what I'd read it to mean wasn't what was meant at all). Is it saying that the use of the word "America" to mean the Americas (rather than the USA) is more common outside of the Americas than it is inside? Mucky Duck 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure where the difficulty in comprehension is arising from. No: it is saying that usage of America to refer to the collectivity remains fairly common – not most common – outside of it (the collectivity). The paragraph after that expands further about usage to describe the USA. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, one more question and then I'll drop it - perhaps it's me. Why is it distinguishing places outside of "it"? It's "fairly common" inside of it too. Mucky Duck 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. Yes: I think this is dealt with in the first sentence (if you take "Throughout the world" to mean the USA too) and the following paragraph. I think it's important to provide an overview and distinguish about usage regardless of location, without getting mired in details that are perhaps better left for Use of the word American. I'm all for tweaking, though. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I said I'd leave it but I think we might have got there. You said there that this statement is providing an overview "regardless of location" - so why is it specifically saying "outside of (the Americas)"? Mucky Duck 13:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read beyond one mere sentence: the section is providing an overview and sufficiently details usage in and out of the America/s. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, that's all fine. But what is this sentence (indeed, paragraph) trying to say? Mucky Duck 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Put it another way: What would it lose by being redrafted simply to say "Usage of America to also refer to this collectivity remains fairly common." Mucky Duck 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you say that? I'd be fine with that; if I missed this in a prior edit, my apologies. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Only because I didn't know what the problem was - I didn't know what it was trying to say with that last bit. Glad we got it sorted. Phew. ;-) Mucky Duck 14:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NP. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

UN and Central America

Anthony, you might have missed this, but I removed the word "dropped" from my version. You might want to reconsider your 2nd reversion of the day. I respect you too much to play a game of 3RR with you, so I'll just leave it as for a day or so. --Uncle Ed 12:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not miss it: your editions are putting undue weight on one definition (the UN scheme, which I'm all for) to the detriment of other established notions regarding the Americas. You might want to consider that when editing. But I do thank you for your consideration. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Resentment of American usage

An awkward phrase in the article:

While those in the United States of America generally refer to the country as America and themselves as Americans, many individuals elsewhere in the Americas arguably resent appropriation and usage of the term in this context and, thus, is frequently avoided.

I added bold markup the awkward phrase.

• individuals ... resent + this is ... avoided

We've lost the subject of the sentence here, which I assume is "usage". Are we trying to say that because many individuals resenst the appropriaton thus the usage is frequently avoided? If so, the passive voice is obscure here.

We need to say WHO avoids this usage. Or who WANTS OTHERS to avoid this usage. --Uncle Ed 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording. I'm open to suggestions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Moving on:

Whether usage of America or the Americas is preferred, many people living in the Americas refer to themselves as American.

Now I've heard many non-US Wikipedians say they refer to themselves as American, but I see no references in any article showing how often this usage occurs outside of this web site. My impression thus far is:

• that many people living in the Americas want to be able to refer to themselves as American and want to make other people stop being able to refer to US people or things as American; but,
• that no one actually calls themselves "American" (in English) or Americano (in Spanish or Portuguese) other than U.S. citizens or residents.

Moreover, I think we cannot afford to neglect the recent political movement for relaxing immigration laws for Latin American immigrants who want to work and/or live in the US. Don't they use slogans like "We are Americans, too"? (If so, how are they using the word "American" here?) --Uncle Ed 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The line cited above is valid (if not generic), but I think the opinionating regarding it is just that. I've limited my additions to notions that I can cite (and, thus, are easily verifiable) and I believe the current treatment is succinct yet accurate. I think the details above are more apt (and or should be (better) treated) in Use of the word American ... whose content seems to be contentious for similar and other reasons. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not really familiar with the "We are Americans, too" slogan (I may have read something or seen a picture of a sign, but don't know much about context) I assume that that is exactly what they mean: they are from America, and therefore American too. --Cotoco 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• All-America City Program

Does any editor in this artcle, Wiki-Americas, understand All-America City? If Not, Are we already sophisticated in this term?--User:PhillC 13:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent Term Means..

These sources below may neither support nor apply to the useage of the term.

• "Americas". The Columbia Gazetteer of the World Online. 2006. New York: Columbia University Press.
• "Americas". Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. 1986. (ISBN 0-85229-434-4) Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
• Burchfield, R. W. 2004. Fowler's Modern English Usage. (ISBN 0-19-861021-1) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Fee, Margery and McAlpine, J. 1997. Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage. (ISBN 0-19-541619-8) Toronto: Oxford University Press.
• Pearsall, Judy and Trumble, Bill., ed. 2002. Oxford English Reference Dictionary, 2nd ed. (rev.) (ISBN 0-19-860652-4) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• [http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzamericas.htm What's the difference between North, Lati--Kevin Taylor 12:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new intro

The article currently starts with (or it did when I started writing this):

The Americas commonly refers to the lands of the Western hemisphere, consisting of the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions.

I see two problems with that:

1. "the lands of the western hemisphere" would, technically*, include part of Europe, Africa, Macaronesia, etc. Maybe it would work better if the following comma was removed, since it would then unambiguously specify which lands of the western hemisphere are considered "America". But I think it would be better to just get rid of that altogether, due to ambiguity (and also #2 below).

(* note: the western hemisphere page talks about a non-capitalized "western hemisphere" as the literal, geographical one, and a capitalized "Western Hemisphere" as a cultural notion referring just to the Americas (which is a distinction I personally had never heard about, but that's irrelevant); therefore, this complicates the sentence, as the expression itself can then assume two meanings, and context doesn't provide obvious clues).

Furthermore, since North America and South America are components of "the Americas", it is a bit of a self-referential definition.

2. It explicitly mentions that the Americas are composed of two continents, which, as we all know, is a contentious issue.

I thought of replacing it with something like this (this is just a draft):

The Americas commonly refers to the lands that separate the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean from each other. It encompasses the lands from Alaska, Canada and Greenland in the north to Tierra del Fuego (southern Argentina and Chile) in the south.

This way we avoid both using the ambiguous "western hemisphere" term, as well as the debate over whether it's one or more continents.

Comments, suggestions? I didn't want to "be bold" and change that right away, without input from other people. Thanks... --Cotoco 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree to User:Cotoco at this point. At the same time, hopefully, remove the word, New World, which I have concerned as a vandalism.--User:PhillC 14:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. The current opening paragraph is very good and not ambiguous, for three reasons. First, there is nothing wrong with describing a whole (the Americas) by listing its parts (North America, South America, etc.). Second, the definition of the Western Hemisphere as used is the most widespread usage an is not particularly prone to causing confusion. Third, just because people occasionally try to change it to a single-continent definition is no reason to give it prominence. You'll notice that they rarely, if ever, try to discuss it here.

The proposed version comes off as very weasely. My first impression, as a reader, is that the writer has described North and South America while going to great lengths to avoid mentioning them by name. That would give a very odd impression.

P.S. What's wrong with "New World"? It certainly isn't vandalism. --Yath 20:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I like Cotoco's version, and it can be followed with an additional sentence explaining that some people consider the Americas to be a single continent (America), while others divide it into two (North America and South America).

We should probably also work in the UN macro and subregion scheme, either in the intro itself or slightly further down the page: in alphabetical order, instead of North-South order, that would be Latin America and Caribbean followed by Northern America. --Uncle Ed 21:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Yath, the status quo is sufficient. Why? The current intro harks of definitions found in various compendiums, namely the Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) ... all of which note the Western hemisphere (OED notes "or the New World" too ... and accusations of that as vandalism, thus, are hyperbole) and also note the two continents. (For added clarity, it may just be a matter of removing the initial comma from the current edition.) And while I do not disagree with contentions that America is perceived by some as being just one continent, these sources indicate otherwise and not one authoritative source has been provided to substantiate this; besides, this viewpoint is accommodated for in the next paragraph and through references of a singular landmass. In addition, the proposed intro is unclear: Eurasia also separates the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from one another ... just the other way around. Moreover, the proposed intro is rather limiting: the Americas entail more than just geographic entities but, e.g., cultural regions that are coincident like Latin America, Anglo-America, et al.

And seeing as how the UN macroregion of the Americas is synonymous with usual reckonings, there's little need to unduly emphasise that definition. And please note that a dedicated article – Americas (terminology) – was crafted to specifically deal with and clarify relevant notions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming Clarification

Re the assertion (which I agree with): A few alternative theories regarding the landmass' naming have been proposed, but none of them has achieved any widespread acceptance. To me it almost leaves the impression, after the scepticism expressed about the Vespucci theory, that there is no acceptable theory. But there is, the Vespucci theory. Or at least that's the majority view.

Richard Amerike theory: This seems the best choice linguistically but that's POV. Critics of this theory though point out that the name would only have described fishing grounds, not the North American landmass. I wonder if that's worth mentioning.

Amerrique theory: It's not stated where the word 'Amerrique' originates and I expected to see that. I gather it's purported to be a Mayan word, although I also read: An imaginative anthropologist studying the mayan culture in Yucatan, Le Plongeon had written to Marcou: "The name AMERICA or AMERRIQUE in the Maya language means, a country of perpetually strong wind, or the Land of the Wind, and sometimes the suffix '-ique' and '-ika' can mean not only wind or air but also a spirit that breathes, life itself." (Scholars today, however,recognize that America doesn't derive from the Mayan language,which was not spoken in Nicaragua, though the name almost resembles in sound the Quiche Maya iq'amaq'el meaning perpetual wind). Paraphrased from here. It sounds like "myth busted" (if true). Does this theory have popular belief in say Central America in the way the Vespucci theory has in the north?

And there is also the Scandinavian: Amteric theory  :)

In short all these theories are territorial and/or nationalistic. I wonder if it's worth acknowledging that. The Vespucci claim for the naming of America is dominant because it's the view of the majority of people who live there. Hakluyt bean 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How prevalent or accepted are these alternate theories; are they salient and verifiable? If so, they should be included though treated equitably (read: treated in proportion to their prevalence). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing with prevalence is... where are we talking about? I would say treat theories fairly; summarize evidence from proposers and detractors. Then note popularity. On verifiability the three theories already in the article are verifiable and I'm happy with them. What's missing atm is a statement that "Vespucci" is the most popular theory, and why. It seems to be just assumed. To people outside the United States on the basis of the article at present this may be puzzling. Jonathan Cohen's page on this, already linked in the article, I find excellent. It highlights reasons for the number of theories. I think it would be nice to incorporate something like that here. -- Hakluyt bean

Canadians' use of "America"

I've removed a sentence claiming Canadians don't use America to refer to the US. I'm Canadian, and 'America' is probably the most commonly used term here to refer to The United States of America. I realize that the statement was cited, but I'm convinced there is some sort of misunderstanding or poor wording involved. The statement as it stood is, as far as I know, completely wrong. --Kinst 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've restored it and will continue to. This is your opinion, which I care not to opine about. One of the fundamental tenets of Wp is verifiability – almost verbatim, this is cited from the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage, a common usage guide; I also consulted various other usage guides to round out content. Feel free to add cited content to counter this one, but do not nix information based solely on what you are convinced of and what is arguably your misunderstanding. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, roughly speaking, you are right here. Generally, in Canadian English, Americans come from the States. WilyD 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages

The section on languages is pretty crummy. Mentioning Dutch as a language spoken in the continent (however gringos insist in calling it) while ignoring the _hundreds_ of native languages (Mexico only has sixty of them still alive) is not on. Ben.

Use of New World

Ok, we've had a slow edit war over whether to include this term in the introduction. I've seen claims that it's biased, but no explanation yet. As far as I know, it's simply common term used to describe the Americas, especially in biology, e.g. "old world monkeys" vs. "new world monkeys" and so forth. To anyone who doesn't want it in the article: would you mind discussing it here? --Yath 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite appropriate, since you'll find that reference in most of the first entries in the "Archivos de Indias" in Seville. It is a term of reference of the continent, the same way we used to say long ago "Las Américas" in plural, but nowadays it's not in fashion and we don't use it anymore in Spain. Well, I agree it should be noted that europeans called it the New World, I'm sure the aztecs and incas didn't called themselves the New World, ;).

I was thinking ot including a little more information on the discussion on the term "America". It seems everybody forgot to mention the book "Las venas abiertas de latinoamerica" of Eduardo Galeano, a uruguayan journalist/historian ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Eduardo_Galeano ). In this book he strongly critisices the appropriation of the term by the US, making the americans of south america "second class americans". So since this has become a moral issue, I think someone should include the other version of the story, latin america's point of view, very well described in the work of this man. I would do it myself but I'm terrible with pc's and I'd probably end up erasing the whole document!! Lol* however, i'll check in a while and if it's not included, I'll do my best. Nemi 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S.-centrism

As I read the following I decided it needed more qualifiers than I have time to add:

(States have been named from the Christian name of a member of the royal family: "Carolina" was named in honor of King Charles I (Latin: Carolus) and "Georgia" after King George II

Obviously this refers to "states" not in the international sense but in the United States sense and obviously this also means a particular royal family. These are not assumptions that an international encyclopedia should make. Could someone clean this up? Durova 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. AJD 16:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"deprecated for clarity" - say what?

From 2nd para: "The designation is a relatively recent and less ambiguous alternative to America, which may refer to either the entire landmass or (colloquially) the United States of America. The original usage to describe what is sometimes considered a single continent or supercontinent is deprecated for clarity, for which the Americas is used to collectively refer to the landmass and various regions of it."

Wouldn't it be clearer, without repetition and without loss of essential meaning to say:

The term the Americas is a relatively recent alternative to the term America, which is ambiguous as it may refer to either this entire landmass or (colloquially) just the United States of America.

I mean, "... deprecated for clarity, for which the Americas is used ..." is not very accessible writing. If you don't like my suggestion, please come up with something else which is clearer than the present wording. Nurg 10:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Actually, I see little wrong with the current 2nd paragraph of the article. Cogito ergo sumo 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

I don't understand something. If I'm reading this right, Martin Waldseemüller was the first cartographer to use the name "America", and the book that accompanied his map says "America" came from Vespucci. Doesn't that pretty much clear up the controversy? Why would "Vespucci's role in the naming issue... most probably a tale" if Waldseemüller named it after him? Something's being left out here. —Chowbok 22:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Neologism?

How recent is the name "The Americas"? Does anyone know? It seems more imprecise and unwieldy than America. Deepstratagem 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that "America" can refer either to the United States of America or to the general region, while "The Americas" refers to North and South America together, the former term is ambiguous while "The Americas" is very precise. As to whether it's a neologism, I couldn't say. --Yath 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When I say imprecise, I mean America is incongruent in meaning with "The Americas", because America has always implied collectivity, while "The Americas" implies separation or division... disconnectivity, if you will. I think America (continent) or America (New World) would be more appropriate. I don't anybody thinks of the United States or Canada when they say The Americas. I know connotations might be a bit subjective, but if "The Americas" is a neologism, it's not really appropriate. Deepstratagem 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deep, give it a rest. Everyone knows Canada and the States are in the Americas. America (continent) or America (New World) would both violate Misplaced Pages's naming convention which requires that things be at the name they're most commonly known as in english. The Americas is not a neologism and you know that perfectly well. I'm not really into counting google hits, but 38 million does not exactly scream neologism per WP:NEO and is used be fairly "official like" things such as the Summit of the Americas or the Free trade area of the Americas.

Flag of The Americas

Here would be the right place. Intuitionz 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)