Jump to content

Talk:America (disambiguation)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


America → America (disambiguation) — This is an English-language site, and America in English most commonly refers to the United States. Thus, this page should be moved to America (disambiguation), and this article should redirect to the United States. Also, the continents are North and South America, or collectively the Americas, not America. — Black Harry (T|C) 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strong oppose per O≠W. As well, take a glance at any dictionary entry for America, and you will note that multiple senses are invariably listed (including the USA, which is sense 3 in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary link above) and a number of entries for 'x America' exist – this DAB should be no different. Corticopia 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And my volume of the New Oxford Dictionary of English harks of the entry in M-W: 'Americas' sense first, 'USA' second (p. 53). My point is this: given the multiple senses of the word, there's little reason to move this to America (disambiguation). Let me put it another way: the 'United States of America' may be prevalent but it is not the only 'America', with the first part 'United States (of)' modifying 'America' just as much as 'North', 'South', 'Central', 'Anglo-', et al. do in their respective senses. Corticopia 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Consider what you would think if someone told you this: "My grandparents sailed to America when they were only 19 and 20." What would you think they meant? Joie de Vivre 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is this conversation taking place? Brazil? Peru? -Acjelen 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per it being unproductive and inflammatory. Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias treat it as ambigious, we should as well. We're not here to correct usage but merely reflect it. WilyD 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Though "Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias (sic) treat it as ambigious" Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and the ability to have "A 'See also' section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable." Black Harry (T|C) 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant to imply that the spirit of WP:V and WP:NOR is called for here. Verifiable, reliable sources are better judges than our biases and anecdotes. WilyD 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Looking at usage, I doubt that people who look up America in an encylcopedia aren't looking for the US primarily (I wish we had stats on how often each of the dab links were clicked!) I'm not from the US, and the people who often have the "super strong opposer" attitude I've met in real life to this kind of thing are generally trying to preach that America isn't just the US. I agree with the editor who suggested Wikipedia isn't to teach, I'd suggest to go directly to the article on the US since it's not our place to try to convince others how wrong they are to look up the US by typing in America. Try doing some google searches and you'll see America shows up in the US sense tens or hundreds of thousands of times more often than the others. --Cheers, Komdori 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the Americas (North and South) were named in 1507. America, is short for United States of America. Besides, why does when something was named effect common usage? Black Harry (T|C) 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See the map on the right to see that you're wrong. The Americas were named America in 1507 - usage later evolved.
1507, America is somewhere in Paraguay
And even if he is, it of course doesn't matter since Wikipedia goes by common usage. Maybe you could point out the part of the naming policy that has to do with naming according to "teaching people what's right." Or should we go rename New York City to New Amsterdam since it had that name first? 128.205.33.79 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all - you'll find I regularly revert people who replace references the Americas with America. The naming policy has to do with where articles are located - in this case, there's a detailed rational at United States as to why it's at that name and not any other (see it's talk) and Americas isn't going anywhere either. As for what's "right", obviously America should mean the States but that's not always how it's used, and often enough it's otherwise (mis)used that a disambig here makes sense. We keep "America" as a disambig precisely because we're not interested in imposing "correct" usage on people, just using actual usage. WilyD 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word "America" is ambiguous enough that it should be disambiguated here. It has nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong, it's simply that there are multiple uses of the word, and both are prominent enough that disambiguation is desireable.--Cúchullain t/c 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Even though I doubt consensus will ever be reached for a move. Some contributors are so bull-headed that they won't even admit that America being used to describe the United States is common enough to warrant it being listed first on the disambig page.--RWR8189 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I realize consensus won't be reached because instead of making this a debate over common usage, they want to accuse me of making inflammatory redirects and alienating non-English speakers on an English-Language Encyclopedia. And even when they talk about common usage, they consider it to be original research. Black Harry 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I am extremely doubtful that the use of America to refer to anything other than the United States is at all common in English. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Please-the-Entire-World Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia, to name one, is perfectly free to define America as a single large continent containing what are called, in English, North America and South America, as indeed it does, and I would oppose any English speaker who attempted to force change upon them. Similarly, there is no reason to allow people whose native language is not English to force the English Wikipedia to use terms in ways that accord with their preferences. --Tkynerd 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Explain, then, why numerous English dictionaries, e.g., list multiple senses (no matter the order) for 'America' and not just the USA? Corticopia 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Because, as I think is obvious to most people, it is the job of dictionaries to document all senses in which a word is used. My comment addressed the frequency of use in different senses, which is a different matter. Also, different dictionaries place the various senses in different orders, so that's not a reliable guide to anything. (ISTR that the OED, for example, lists the senses in the chronological order in which the word began to be used in English in each sense -- nothing to do with current frequency of use in each sense.) --Tkynerd 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • So, what you're saying is that your reasoning about the frequency of usage is predicated on personal belief -- after all, you did indicate you were doubtful about usage of 'America' to mean something other than the USA, despite volumes and indications below which directly contradict that. I mean: the Britannica entry for 'America' could easily have redirected the reader to 'United States of America' instead of 'Americas'. Corticopia 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You misunderstand me (and much else). I made clear in my original opposing post above that this was my own best understanding of the situation, which is not the same thing as a point of view in the Wikipedia sense, a term you are misusing here to attempt to paint me as biased (and yourself as unbiased), which could be construed as a personal attack. As for the "volumes and indications," they're nothing more than opinions and wishful thinking clouded by familiarity with languages other than English -- not relevant to the appropriate practices of an English-language encyclopedia. --Tkynerd 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Your (understanding) and mine, throughout, are points of view. You made clear in your original posting what you believed to be the case, just as I have -- I have corroborated mine, however. Anyhow, what other volumes do is precisely of relevance here, since they contradict your understanding and, possibly, wishful thinking. I can't and won't comment regarding your other points. Corticopia 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Your "corroboration" consists of citations from single works that cannot be assumed to reflect English usage in general. And of course our different understandings of this issue are points of view in the ordinary sense, but not in the Wikipedia sense, as I made clear above. Your unwillingness to address my other points is noted. --Tkynerd 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Heh, heh -- making counterfactual claims seem to be a staple on Wikipedia discussion pages (not to speak of the articles themselves). older ≠ wiser 15:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Counterfactual -- me? I don't understand. :) Corticopia 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          To claim that it is uncommon to use America to refer to anything other than the U.S. in English is demonstrably false, hence, counterfactual. BTW, my comment was in response to Tkynerd, not you Corticopia. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • OK. :) Corticopia 17:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • "Demonstrably"? Still waiting for the QED, and preferably one not constructed of hastily grasped straws. --Tkynerd 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • As for dictionaries, I would look at them a bit differently than encyclopedias. Someone often looks up a single word there, and might be looking up part of a phrase (knowing what South means, but not knowing America in general). To confront the issue more head on, can you provide some evidence (perhaps some simple Google searches) that most of the time (or even say, half the time) in English pages the word America alone does not refer to the US? I expect you'll find that far in excess of 90% of the time it does refer just that way. Most places in the English speaking world (I live in the US now, but haven't always), whether you hear "I hate America" or "I can't wait to take a trip this summer to America," it's perfectly clear what is meant. Think of the dab page as a person with whom you are speaking--if you say America, most people jump to concluding US, not ask you what you meant. As I mentioned somewhere else, sure, print encyclopedias need a manual redirect and list all possibilities to save time (since the main article clearly belongs in the U section), but we don't need to do that here since it just means one extra click to the dab page if you wind up at the US page accidently. --Cheers, Komdori 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you apply teh google to America - you get:

  1. United States
  2. Americas
  3. America (Band)
  4. America (Fashion Designer)
  5. A (film company)
  6. United States
  7. United States
  8. "America" (poem)
  9. America (2002 movie)
  10. America (Catholic Newsletter)
  11. United States
            • Anyways, this goes on quite a bit, and we all know that google isn't a great reference (since most english speakers have very limited internet access, even if most anglophones have good access). It's a simply application of the dictionary see here. Look, refering to the Americas as America is patently offensive, but it's widespread - that's simply the way it is. We're not here to correct that. WilyD 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You failed to mention that the first two results you found were both links to Wikipedia. After those you get the band America, America's Library (US), AOL, America's Homepage (Plymouth, MA), and a Jesuit Magazine published in the US. Black Harry 15:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't provide any context, although using ghits to decide usage is a terrible plan anyways. The point was the even a terrible plan, biased towards getting the States gave only a plurality of the top hits - I'm sure not going to count all the many millions of hits for America the google gives - I also skipped the two or three "North America"s that were in the top ten and the like. WilyD 15:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Might be worth noting that searching for America "United States", which gets you listings like www.americaslibrary.gov returns back a whopping 752 million, far outweighing anything else. As for you being confused when people say phrases like, "I can't wait to visit America this summer," or "America always tries to police the world," I might suggest that I've observed this phenomenon only from a tiny group of English speakers (mostly the few non-native speaking South Americans). While I don't want to rely on anecdotes, the simple Google search seems to back that up. --Cheers, Komdori 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that search engines will never separate multiple hits on the same site. Therefore, the first result was the United States article here. Because of this it list Americas here as its second result; indented to show that the article are on the same site. Black Harry 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
And for you limeys out there, a BBC search's top results all refer to the US of A. Black Harry 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
And not leaving out all my Aussie friends, a webwombat.au search's top results all refer to the United States.Black Harry 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The central problem with having America redirect anywhere but here is the presence of two, opposed, unwavering camps. For many people in the United States, the meaning of "America" is clear and the idea that the word might have another definition would be suprising, shocking, and even angering. Moreover, it is common in the United States to think of North America and South America as two separate entities not requiring a label together. The other camp has the opposite position, with the definition of "America" equally clear and sensible; and its other use equally angering and even insulting (though not surprising). Keeping this page here preserves the neutral point of view required by Wikipedia policy. -Acjelen 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well put. Corticopia 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This is almost exactly right - the only inaccuracy is the assigning to Americans reactions that are also common among Canadians, for instance. WilyD 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? I am Canadian and I wouldn't think so. While "America" is derived from American usage, I don't think it's used as often as "the States", due to the potential ambiguity and the fact that we are both part of North America. But you may be right. –Pomte 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, my day-to-day usage is "Americans come from the (United) States" - but I'd vehemently deny that I'm an American, and I'd walk away from (or Jersey!) anyone who pushed the point too much. WilyD 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The word America is used to refer to the Americas - just about every source about it will mention this. Latin Americans feel particularly strongly about this - and although I find it bizarre, given the implications, it does seem to be the case. I asked a Chilean co-worker about continents and he identified America as one of the five continents. Of course, myself and my (real) American officemate were surprised - but the evidence that this usage is widespread is abundant. WilyD 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And can we assume, WilyD, that you were having this conversation with your Chilean co-worker in English? -Acjelen 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - Je parle seulement Anglais. WilyD 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In Korea and I believe Japan, too, the word is actually just a transliterated version of America for the United States. Speakers from Asia generally wind up using this word for it when they learn English, just like virtually all Americans. I know there is a borderline militant (no one here I'm sure, no ruffled feathers please) group of people who like to say all you Americans and Indians and Asians and British are wrong, but sorry, outside of Latin America it's kind of rare, and I don't see those people as forming anywhere close to a significant portion of English speakers. In most places in the world if they ask where you took your summer holiday and you respond "America," you won't get a puzzled look asking you to specify. Since the only people who really care about this issue are those who want to preach their position that "you all are saying it wrong," my guess is the move will fail, and they can keep their dab page as a tacit reminder to all the hundreds of millions of English speaking schoolkids and adults alike who make the grave error of typing America to mean the US that there is a small but vocal portion of the world who use it for another purpose. --Cheers, Komdori 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a lot more to it than this. I've been very vocal in my condemnation of using America to mean the Americas and American to mean Pan-American - but I also see why this is the correct solution for this issue. It's a straightforward issue that America is sometimes used to mean the Americas and we really can't quantify how much this is - but every dictionary and encyclopaedia thinks it's enough that it warrents prominant mention. We really have no idea what percentage of users who enter America into the search box mean the States, and how many mean the Americas. WilyD 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree it would be awfully nice to know who clicked where, it might help discussions like this. That being said, even if we did move the page, we can still have such a prominent mention at the top of the page that "America redirected there, and to see other usages of the word click here." Paper encyclopedias don't really have that ability. Another thing to keep in mind--paper books can't do this kind of redirect. They have to choose a place to actually print the article, which clearly should be all the way over in volume U for US. They therefore have a choice--at America just put "see US" or give a bigger dab like we have. In the interest of common sense they have to put everything there "just in case." We don't--we can resolve to US and give a notice that there are some other meanings, too. I don't want to get in a huge google debate with anyone, but simple searches really do show that in most cases America is used as US. --Cheers, Komdori 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Conceded:The word America is used to refer to everything on this disambiguation page, that's why they're listed here. I suggest, though, that that fact doesn't have a significant impact on the decision. Imperialism aside, America is usually used to refer to the U.S.A. in English speaking America (pick your usage, the U.S. is populous enough to skew the results.) I would be mollified if the disambiguation page moved the Americas down the list, possibly to Other places. Would this proposal have a chance at consensus? Gruber76 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll 1

This Poll is not aimed to replace the debate above, but is being used to clarify a question.See Wikipedia's policy on polling for more information.

The question for this Poll is: What does the term America most commonly refer too? Please place your answer in the appropriate section by simply inserting the pound sign followed by four tildes. Black Harry 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

United States of America

  1. Black Harry 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Acjelen 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Joie de Vivre 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Cheers, Komdori 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Americas

North America

South America

America the Band

America the Catholic Publication

America Online

This poll is pointless diversion from the real question

  1. While there might be some who assert that the using term America to refer to something other than the U.S. is more common -- that is actually quite besides the point. The real question is whether the term is ambiguous. And that is, IMO, rather indisputable. It is indisputable that in native English usage, there are a variety of common referents for the term -- and two in particular that are at least very roughly in the same league of commonality. older ≠ wiser 21:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    So in your opinion, any ambiguous term should go to a dab page directly? Just yesterday we wer commenting on Pele, which goes to the football player directly (as it should) since that is the most likely term. The top line in that article lets you get to the dab page. In the same was as America, Pele can potentially be ambiguous, but since it by far most commonly refers to the football player, it goes there directly and lets you click for the dab page if you didn't mean that. --Cheers, Komdori 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    I might also on what you base your "roughly in the same league of commonality"? If you search for America "United States," even if you exclude the many common terms "North America," "South America," "Latin America," "Central America," here you still get 483 million results. I don't think it's useful to count "North America," etc. results for "alternate usages" because that's not the word America alone. Heck, you can even exclude "United States of America" from that search and get over 400 million results, all seemingly relevant to the US alone ("American factfinder" census information, lawn bowling in America, flags of America, National Parks "Experience America," and the like). The fact is that if you qualify America with an adjective you get a lot of results, but if you are talking about the word America alone, it almost universally is talking about the US. --Cheers, Komdori 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    While there are other things that may be known as "Pele", to my knowledge no one has presented any convincing evidence that any other use even remotely comes close to that of the soccer star. That is the definition of a primary topic. In this case, while America meaning the U.S. is more common, it is not so overwhelming common and there is another usage which is also fairly common. There is little to be gained by having America become a redirect to the United Sates and significant potential for confusion. older ≠ wiser 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's true that the word "America" has multiple referents in English. However, it is not true that every concept that has multiple referents must be (or redirect to) a dab page on Wikipedia. The site is replete with counterexamples like School. --Tkynerd 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree -- to launch a straw poll amidst discourse regarding this proposed move is potentially disruptive. Are not expressed opinions above sufficient? Corticopia 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ummm. Actually I think older ≠ wiser's statement highlights exactly why we need this discussion. I don't think that anyone is arguing that the term America is not ambiguous. What is being asserted is that the U.S. is the well known primary meaning for America. If it is, then the Manual of Style gives us clear guidance on what to do. Thus this straw poll is entirely appropriate. Gruber76 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    First, straw polls are evil. Second: now? No, this is a confused chicken-and-egg approach -- this poll doesn't help to clarify the question, it confuses it. Do one then another; doing both simultaneously on the same page is confusing and arguably disruptive. I can just as easily argue that the requestor of the move launched a straw poll (which really means nothing in the RM) since results to date do not favour the proposed move. So, how do you like them apples? Corticopia 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    All voting is evil, including RM's' polls. He's trying to establish if we can agree there is a primary usage for the term, which is sorting out the mess of comments above. Primary usage is kind of critical for this naming issue, so it really does warrant a little section to the side, and the poll form does sort it out quite nicely. I really don't think there's any disruption here. Even if it's 90% oppose, it can still move if we wind up realising the oppose votes were based on a faulty foundation. I doubt it will happen, though, since I'm frankly shocked at the aggressive nature of some editors who are, as someone mentioned, most likely coming up with their reasons from familiarity with non-English languages. In the end, if there is that much fire in someone's heart to teach all the English speakers of the rather trivial fact that in some rather small parts of the English-speaking world it means something else (outside Britain, the US, Asia, and Australia, for example), I don't see that much harm in it (so leave it if it means that much to you), but at the same time, I also don't think it really corresponds to the primary usage policy (see the Google results I mentioned above). Just my two cents. --Cheers, Komdori 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding the clear guidance that Gruber76 refers to, it is quite clear -- Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page. -- That the RM poll above is running at present 2 to 1 opposed to the move should give some indication that there is not a primary topic in this case. older ≠ wiser 01:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Now you're talking! If it were clear that everyone, in their opposition, were using the same definition you were I would shut up and go away. But I don't see evidence of that, and that's precisely why I think the straw poll is serving a purpose. (the purpose of guiding the debate along the lines of which MoS guidelines apply.) What would you say is roughly the cut-off point for a usage to be "primary"? I'm not trying to trap you with slippery slopes or anything, here. It seems that there are two variables, and we've been framing the debate as though there is only one: 1) what is the % where a usage becomes "primary" 2) what is % usage in English of America to refer to the U.S.A. I think the answer to #1 is "about 2 to 1" (66%) and that we've clearly crossed that threshold in America being used to refer to the U.S.A. Gruber76 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, the guideline you cite and I quoted is pretty clear -- if there is significant disagreement about whether a term is a primary topic, chances are it is not. And 2 to 1 in the RM poll above opposed to having America redirect to US is pretty significant disagreement. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    If the oppositions above stated they didn't think America was primarily used to refer to the U.S.A. then I would agree with you that there was not consensus. But I don't see evidence of that in their oppositions (even yours, before now.) Here's how I read it (and I'm happy to be corrected, or for people to clarify their objections.) Specifically:
    1. Older =/ wiser: you stated that there are people who disagree. Again, I don't think they're being guided by MoS.
    2. Corticopia: cites you, and that there are multiple definitions. Which we all agree with but isn't relevant to the discussion. -- Of course it's fully relevant -- the point of a DAB page is to "[resolve] conflicts in article titles ... when a single term can be associated with more than one topic." This definitely applies, either to America on its own or in concert with what are essentially modifiers (e.g., '(the major northern portion of) America', 'the United States of America', et al.) I can't specifically qualify other editorial opinions above about prevalence of usage regarding this or that, but the fact that there are more online hits for, say, North America than United States of America indicates in part that this DAB is appropriately placed. Corticopia 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    3. Acjelen: doesn't cite a specific reason
    4. WilyD: cites the existence of multiple definitions. Again, we all agree with that point.
    5. Noel S McFerran: cites existence of word America prior to U.S.A. Relevance?
    6. Cuchullian: again, does not address whether usage of America to refer to U.S.A is primary or not.
    7. Thehalfone: agrees with Cuchillian
    8. AJD: seems to be addressing the issue at hand, though I disagree and would prefer to continue discussion.
    Gruber76 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Whether a person opposing the move agrees that the U.S. is the most common referent for America is irrelevant. The crucial question is whether the term is sufficiently ambiguous to be a disambiguation page or a redirect as a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 11:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I thought that we had agreed that the test was "is X the primary meaning' for Y" or, alternately, "is X the clearly dominant usage for Y?" Because both the disambiguation page and the disambiguation link are used for ambiguous phrases, discussing sufficiency of ambiguousness is a distraction from the issue at hand. I had suggested that "is X the primary menaing for Y" comes in two parts:
    1. What % of usages is necessary for a phrase to become the primary meaning?
    2. What % of usages does America refer to U.S.A.?
    Discussing the large number of minority usages, the history of such usages, or the number of people who have expressed concern that there are minority usages is all tangential.
    I've stated clearly that I think the answer to #1 is 66%. I've also stated vaguely that I think #2 is well over 66%. I was trying to give people opposing this request the opportunity to change my mind by either proposing a stricter standard or illustrating that the most common usage of America doesn't pass that threshold.
    One last point, relevant to determining % of usage: according to the English language entry 84% of native English speakers are either in the U.S.A. or the U.K. so if America is used to refer to the U.S.A. 80% of the time in those two countries, but is universally used to refer to the Americas elsewhere then the primary meaning' test would still hold water.Gruber76 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, 66% to be a primary topic may be your clearly stated opinion, but is there any indication of such hard and fast metrics in policy or guidelines? Based on my experiences with disambiguation, I'd say the bar for primary topic is significantly higher. The clear guidance that you referred to above says, If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Given the protracted discussions on this topic, both now and previously, it seems pretty clear that this does not qualify for primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I chose 66% because it would mean the primary meaning was twice as common as all other meanings combined. But I was presenting it as an option and asking for discussion. You've now stated that you think it should be "significantly higher" but that doesn't give us much to go on. What's a good number? Why?
    And one more time: prior to your discussion with me there was no current "discussion about which article truly is the primary topic." There were a lot of unopposed declarations that America is an ambiguous phrase. Gruber76 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    (after ec)I oppose the illusion of certainty given by hard and fast metrics. It is a matter of discussion and consensus. Always has been. That is the nature of a wiki. My observation was that based on previous experience with disambiguation, 66% is rather low to claim a primary topic status. Re: your second point, look through the archives (both this page and Talk:Americas and somewhat even at Talk:United States. It has been discussed extensively many times. older ≠ wiser 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, WP:NAME uses the term majority (see below). Majority only implies 51% is needed. So 66% is much more than needed. And this is the first open and formal debate on this issue, so any prior discussions have no relevance. Black Harry 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    WP:NAME majority is applicable in cases where there are two unambiguous names that refer to the same topic -- a simple majority can decide for one over the other. In ambiguous cases, deciding on primary topic status requires more than a simple majority. older ≠ wiser 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Funny, I almost created a section like this b/c I knew people opposing the move would cry foul. However I do respect the fact that none of the opposers voted for the Americas, which does show that while they agree USA is what America most often refers too, that they are above voting for anything just to be confrontational Black Harry 01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, what's the point of voting for something that is meaningless? I mean, there is relatively little dispute that for many people the term America commonly refers to the U.S. What is disputed is whether that usage is so overwhelmingly more common than any of the other uses to merit being treated as a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well common usage is what this debate should be about. It shouldn't be a recitation of what other encyclopedias do per WP:NOT#PAPER. It should not be about whether or not the word "America" existed before the "US of America" existed. Nor should it be about whether non-native English Speakers would possibly find this offensive. It's about whether native speakers of English throughout the world use America to mean the US of A, or the contrary, that whenever the word America is used throughout the English-speaking world, chaos and confusion occur, requiring further definition of the term "America". Black Harry 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    No, common use helps in determining what the title of an article should be. The crucial question is whether the term America is ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Direct quote from the opening of WP:NAME:
    "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle:Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."
    So, no the point of this debate should be whether or not confusion occurs throughout the English Speaking world whenever the word "America" is uttered. Given the fact that 84% of English Speakers in this world are from the US or the UK, its a safe bet to assume a majority (51%) would use America to mean the United States Black Harry 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    WP:NAME majority is applicable in cases where there are two unambiguous names that refer to the same topic -- a simple majority can decide for one over the other. In ambiguous cases, deciding on primary topic status requires more than a simple majority. older ≠ wiser 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to ask you to find me anything on WP:NAME that makes such a point. I am however, going to ask why you think 66% isn't enough. First, that would mean the most common usage is used twice as much as the second most used term. Second, if the United States Congress can override a Presidential veto with 66%, why is that still not enough for you? Black Harry 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Like I said previously, I oppose the illusion of certainty that hard and fast metrics provide. It is a matter for discussion and consensus not voting or the various ways that statistics can be manufactured to support just about any POV.
    (after ec) Further guidance at WP:NAME suggests "Conversely, a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page." and further down WP:NAME#Be precise when necessary recommends "Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings." The crucial question is not whether the U.S. is the most common referent for America, but whether that term is sufficiently ambiguous for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm starting to think that Bkonrad aka O≠W is no longer arguing his position out of good faith, but is doing so only too stop this debate from reaching a consensus. Every point we make, he argues is either wrong or irrelevant, then when we defend those points using strong, logical arguments, it becomes a mute issue because of POV? Black Harry 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but your so-called "strong, logical arguments" are anything but that. If you are attempting to make points that are irrelevant to the question at hand or based on mistaken understandings of guidelines, why is it bad faith for me to point this out? older ≠ wiser 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Of course, perhaps I should just let this pass quietly, since as it stands now, the requested move is going nowhere with 8-4 opposed. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Because in theory Wikipedia is not a democracy, meaning that the closing Admin will hopefully take time to read the whole debate here, and decide what to do based on the arguments brought up. Black Harry 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes indeed, and there is little doubt about what the outcome will be, assuming that the admin actually does read all the discussion here and understands current guidelines. The term America is ambiguous and should remain a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per above. The poll has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is whether America overwhelmingly refers to the USA (which it doesn't). "North America" and "South America", while not necessarily the most used reference to America, are significant. Even America the band is a significant minority. Ral315 » 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are honestly suggesting that there is a significant number of people who go around in the English speaking world using America to refer exclusively to South America?
  1. See List of countries by English-speaking population - while America = the States may be the common usage in American, Canadian and a few other dialects, we know that simply polling the lot of us is unlikely to give insight into the plurality of usage, nevermind the majority of usage. WilyD 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, and considering the huge number of results where the word America means the US, do you have any evidence that it is often used as a word alone to refer to something else? I mean, even searching for "God Bless America" gives a million and a half results; "America the Beautiful" another million+, "America Online" the same. Even if it were just the US (it's not, it's also Canada, Europe, Asia, etc.), the number of times they use the word America to describe themselves far outweighs the times America is used (alone) to refer to anything else. --Cheers, Komdori 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Significant evidence to this effect has already been presented. WilyD 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Wily. It is obvious the word "America" is to some extent ambiguous, the real question should be if it ambiguous enough to require a disambiguation page. Even though "United States" is the most common use, the term is still quite ambiguous, especially in terms of an encyclopedia search. A similar case is presented by Native Americans. The term is ambiguous; does it mean Indians, or just Indians in the US? Or does it refer to all indigenous peoples in the US, which includes Native Hawaiians and certain Alaska groups, who are not closely related to Indians? Or does it refer to all indigenous peoples in any state in the Americas, such as native Easter Islanders, who are Chilean? In this case there is a primary use of the term (Native Americans in the United States) but the term is still ambiguous enough to require a disambig page.--Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry WilyD, I've read through everything and didn't see it, I must be blind. Can you give a link to the section or point where there is evidence that the word "America" alone is used (without being in a context of "Latin America," "Central America," etc.) to mean the Americas such that such usage rivals the usage of the word America alone (without being in the phrase "United States of America") to imply the US? The google searches seem to suggest there are hundreds of millions of cases of the latter, and comparitively I can't find more than a handful of the former. --Cheers, Komdori 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Google searches are probably a less accurate way of figuring this out than a coinflip would be. We already know India has the most english speakers and very poor internet access, for instance. The move America to United States crowd has exactly no evidence, whereas the "leave as a disambig" crowd has the precedent that every other encyclopaedia and every dictionary treats them equally (with a mix of first listing preference). WilyD 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WilyD, the only hard evidence (for either side) on this whole page was your link to dictionary definitions in which every one listed had U.S.A. as the first listing. (Oh, one other, Komdori's citation from a paper encyclopedia (s)he had close at hand.) I would head to the library tomorrow and do a quick survey of encyclopedias if I thought it had any chance of swaying either side. Gruber76 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That's willful blindness if there was any, since other dictionaries presented list senses for 'America' differentially, e.g., Merriam-Webster (listed 3rd), Oxford ... and Britannica, in its entry for America, redirects readers not to 'United States' but to 'Americas'. Corticopia 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Not willful blindness. Just sloppiness of where my cursor was when I started searching the page for "dictionary." If you're going to insult me, don't give me more credit than I deserve. Gruber76 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Credit where it is due? Corticopia 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the article on America at MSN Encarta is about the "second largest isolated landmass of the earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere." older ≠ wiser 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW more, when you put in America in their search, it lists the United States article on the top and lists the article about the landmass further down, implying they assume you "really meant" US. As for paper encyclopedias, of course they have a dab page there, they don't have the ability to have both a redirect and a dab page like we do. --Cheers, Komdori 14:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointless Question Already Answered In A Recent Debate But Which Wikipedia Requires Me To Ask Anyway

From Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/América

AMERICA IS A CONTINENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.14.66 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the United States the most common usage of the term America. This is not an attempt to move or redirect this page. I thought we all agreed America most commonly refers to the US in the move/redirect now in archive two. However I am asking this again anyway because needs consensus for any moves, "should the United States" and not "The Americas" be on the top?

In fact, more pointedly: Can anyone cite one published instance where the term America alone is used to mean the same thing as the Americas without further explanation (which excludes reference works)? The point of this question is to get at whether English speakers actually can and do understand America to refer to the Americas without any additional explanation. I'd like to see an example of that. --Tkynerd 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, "Columbus discovered America" returns 76000 gHits [1] and the first unambigious use of "America" to mean "the Americas" I get off JSTOR is here [Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-5413%281990%2917%3C113%3ACFGTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2] Columbus from Guinea to America P. E. H. Hair History in Africa, Vol. 17 (1990) pp. 113 - 129
Look, I detest the use of "America" to mean "the Americas" as much as the next guy (probably more) - but it is real. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to see the States listed first, the Americas listed second here as well. WilyD 15:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Though published recently, isn't that a historic usage? (i.e. in reference to a historic voyage termed that way hundreds of years ago) Joie de Vivre 15:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I should be studying for my qualifier, I'm a nice guy so I dug up this: [2] Additional Neotropical Tremellales B. Lowy Mycologia, Vol. 67, No. 5. (Sep. - Oct., 1975), pp. 991-1000. and this: A Key to the Nymphs of the Families of Hemiptera (Heteroptera) of America North of Mexico Jon L. Herring; Peter D. Ashlock, The Florida Entomologist, Vol. 54, No. 3. (Sep., 1971), pp. 207-212. [3]
For which one is this an example? It seems they wanted to say North America minus Mexico, but that would be too awkward... In any case, I'd also agree that the US reference should probably be on top. --Cheers, Komdori 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
For which what is this an example? These are two examples of "America" used without explanation to mean "the Americas" in modern literature which avoid the suggested problem of Joie de Vivre that it might just be a preserved archaic usage. WilyD 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't sure if you meant the America North of Mexico as an example for it or not... I understand your point now, although I still suggest it's because the term "North America without Mexico" or "Continental US plus Alaska and Canada" sounds too awkward, not because they used America alone. The other example has other issues--even though it's Brazilian/Venezuelan in origin, they still qualify America not with the traditional North or South, but "tropical," as a way to clearly show it's not referring the US. --Cheers, Komdori 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that that's true. United States and Canada is hardly as awkward as "America North of Mexico" - I doubt Bermuda or Greenland really entered into it. And I think you're also wrong about the "tropical" qualifier. In the "America = United States" model, "Central America" = Costa Rica et al, "central America" = Nebraska et al, "South America" = Bolivia et al, "south America" = Alabama et al. It clearly thinks Venezuala and such are part of "America". WilyD 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to be seen as being overly picky, but it seems the authors did not use US and Canada since that might imply Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc., and the article wants to focus on the region of North America sans Mexico. Since there are no "tropics" in the US, "tropical America" serves as qualifier enough; the word America doesn't appear anywhere without such qualifier. I'd be more comfortable with saying the word "America" is used in the English speaking word alone to refer to the Americas about as often as it is used to refer to the US if we could find even a few clear-cut cases, rather than the millions that were pointed out in the rm for the other usage ("God bless America", "America online," "Amercia the beautiful," or even "American flags," "American government," "American history," "American literature," etc.) --Cheers, Komdori 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I might add the corresponding "American" disambig page which suggests the equality of usage of American to mean "resident of the Americas" as "resident of the US" is at least as dubious as the suggestion that America is used for Americas as often as the US. --Cheers, Komdori 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The second point is definitely false. American = of the Americas is a more common usage (AFAIC) than America = the Americas is. The latter has obvious modern usages all over the place - Organization of American States - the Office of American Imperialism not the least among them. WilyD 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you are probably right that there are many more cases of American meaning of the Americas than America meaning the Americas. In any case, my fault for bringing up something knid of off topic--I guess I should have brought it up over there; if people have thoughts on it, maybe they should check that article out, too. --Cheers, Komdori 18:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think everyone should take a look at American History. BH (T|C) 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries - it's not particularly off topic - and a more global understanding is always worthwhile - in the end, don't worry quite so much about being on topic
I don't think specialized scientific usage qualifies for what I was looking for when I posted my question. This isn't an encyclopedia for specialists; it's for general readers. If someone can post an example of this usage in English in a publication intended for a general audience, that will be much more relevant. --Tkynerd 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the whole people proposing the United States to be on top for "America" are the US Americans themselves. Have you heard about Amerigo Vespucci? Sometimes it even seems like "North America" is for US Americans the US without Canada and most of Mexico. --Periergeia 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This definitely isn't the case. North America in it's most restrictive is Canada + America (and probably unstated but including Bermuda, St. Pete and Mickey and Greenland, provided the speaker knows they exist). And as a denizen of Soviet Canuckistan, I'd rather see related to America above related to the Americas - I just can't be bothered to care much. WilyD 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Monroe Doctrine has often been summarized as "America for the Americans". And it is clear that America means the whole continent in that phrase (what is sometimes debated is the intended meaning of "Americans" in the same phrase). Calin99 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

-- 82.123.140.167 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC) The term America refers to the United States in English languages only, and is not very NPOV; just a matter of tradition.


This is an English Website. Why would it not suit the reader to see United States when they type in America? This seems like pushing an agenda with a childish attack on very common colloquial speech. Anyone who speaks English uses the term "America" for the United States of America. Otherwise they would type in Canada or Mexico and such. Come on now. The very NPOV you attempt to address here is being reversed and becoming more NPOVish with this stupid argument.

America = United States in most people's speech. Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.74 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "America" is used (in my experience) interchangeably in both some forms of UK and Hiberno-English to refer to the continent of North America and the United States. It is rarely used to refer exclusively to the United States Of America outside of North America. When debating this point, please bear in mind that while the English Language is used in numerous places around the world, American coloquiallisms are not. Has anyone agreed to what dialect of English we're supposed to be using? Is it in the style guide? :) Caspiankilkelly (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If America doesn't mostly refer to the Americas by a large margin (and it doesn't - to the contrary, it mostly refers to the U.S. in modern English usage), then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to guess that the U.S. link here is clicked more often than the Americas link, as the U.S. article is enormously more popular than the Americas article. The traffic stats for the last month give 1424430 views for the United States and 73775 views for the Americas. There would have to be a reason why a much higher proportion of those who look for the Americas come here than of those who look for the U.S. to make the Americas link get more clicks. Such reasons may exist though - there are more links to the U.S. article than to the Americas article, for instance. But still, this looks like a safer guess than the other way around. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing the two American continents

Joie de Vivre asked in that editor's last edit summary if listing the division of "the Americas" into North America and South America was necessary on this disambiguation page. I think that it is: as some users may not be familiar with the term Americas or with the use of America to describe both North America and South America. -Acjelen 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's misleading without the inclusion of the alternate subdivision into North America, Central America, and South America (and sometimes the Carribean), so it probably should be left out. Perhaps the recently added Western hemisphere gives adequate context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Which would just open the floodgates to transporting a whole article into a disambiguation page. "Western Hemisphere" seems like a good qualifier - although I'd listen to alternatives. WilyD 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I agree with Acjelen. I also believe we should keep it as simple as possible, i.e., Western hemisphere, with just North and South America; otherwise, we open the floodgates to adding any number of other Americas to this entry. Quizimodo 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out, I believe that adding North and South America "opens the floodgates". Western hemisphere seems adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
North and South America are continents - and those are what is referred to together as the Americas. I believe they should--Keerllston 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Quizimodo and Acjelen that North and South America should be left in, as not everyone outside of North- and Southamerica knows what The Americas means. Central America could be added, but I'm not 100% sure, as it is not a continent on its own. --Mdebets (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pronounciation"

You must include the proper IPA:pronounciation of "America" in your Articles including that/and "Ah"-merica pertains to it's Continent and/that "A"-merica pertains to the "U.S.A." Intuitionz 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Что не понимаете?? ну и я вас тоже —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.171.6 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, The Americas are "in" the Western hemisphere and not "of". Intuitionz (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

america is my one of the best country thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.83.188 (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Definition of America

The CIA Factbook is a reliable source for many things, but it is not an authoritative source for English language use. English is descriptive rather than prescriptive language meaning that there is no academy that decides what is and isn't correct. Most authorities that write books "describe" common usage as guidelines for grammar and usage. I am reverting the recent edit that states that America often incorrectly refers to the United States. You cannot make an edit and say that any changes are considered vandalism. Here are my two sources:

American Heritage Dictionary: 1. The United States. 2. also the Americas, The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: 1. United States 2. North America 3. South America 4. Also called the Americas. North and South America, considered together.

The most common use in the English language for the term America refers to the United States, and that is the reason that both dictionaries give the United States as the first definition. This is not just American English, as people in the UK refer to The U.S. as America as well. This is hundreds of years of English usage whether it's right or wrong; it just is. Kman543210 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and (per disambiguation guidelines) sources do not need to be added to each disambiguation entry. The linked articles fully elaborate on the topic matter. 69.158.146.81 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct; however, when people constantly dispute the simple definition of "America" referring to the United State and change the disambiguation page, I felt it necessary. People continually added "incorrectly" refers to the United States. Kman543210 (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That still doesn't justify nonconsensual addition of references to what is essentially a placeholder, contrary to guidelines. As it is now, the second entry (for the US) refers back to the former (for the Americas); conversely, adding "mostly in North America" to the 2nd entry (while not factually incorrect) introduces yet another notion. Thus, keep it simple. The articles Americas, American, etc. expand on the issue: I've added some. And if various editors disagree with what is arguably common knowledge regarding this, they should be and will be reverted on the spot. Thanks. 69.158.146.81 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we both can agree that adding "mostly" to the North American part was unnecessary (the editor that added this did so on the basis that Hawaii wasn't on the mainland). I do think putting in "North America" is more specific than just "the Americas". I was the one who personally put in the references, not because I thought they needed to be there, but because there was an editor who insisted on a certain version stating that any reverting would be vandalism. By putting in the references, it seemed to stop the controversy...apparently not though. Kman543210 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if we were to note that the U.S. is in North America, the rationale to include "mostly" is sound and I would support it. However, despite the truism of the assertion (which a glance at the article 'United States' will reveal), it is probably better to not note that it is in North America for a similar reason: a glance at the archives reveals endless back-and-forthing about what the Americas entry should indicate also: North/Central/South America, etc. As well, the U.S. is also a part of Anglo-America, and by saying it is in the Americas covers off any number of interpretations. Keep it simple, and not be so specific as to re-open a can of worms: relevant articles elaborate adequately. And if someone is going to believe that it is incorrect to equate America with the US (and, despite it being common in English, it may cause offence to some -- see Americas), they are probably not reasoned enough to edit in a balanced way anyway. (If we must include 'mostly in North America', though, we don't need the references.) 69.158.146.81 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is so politicized. That's the only explanation I can think of why "America" doesn't lead to USA. I wish Wikipedia would release stats on how many people click on the USA link when they get to this ridiculous placeholder. --149.159.3.161 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and your commentary doesn't help: consult any reputable English compendium (an encyclopedia or dictionary, like here) and they invariably indicate that 'America' may be used to refer to the 'Americas' or the 'United States'. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the disambiguation page because it truly does have two meanings. Two different dictionaries I consulted both have the U.S. listed as the primary definition of the word which means that is the meaning that is used most. I do think it's weird how people who are not native English-speakers object so much to it. I personally never use America in place of the U.S., but people from other English-speaking countries such as the UK and Australia also use America for the U.S. (not sure about Canadians). The thing I object to is putting "incorrectly used to refer to the U.S." on the disambiguation page, which is why I originally added the two citations that have been removed. Kman543210 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is fine as is, I think. I also object to the 'incorrect[ly]' text, and will remove that if I see it again: it is not 'incorrect' because someone believes it to be. The above dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists 'the Americas' sense before the U.S. one, but I wonder if it lists entries in chronological order. Anyhow, this doesn't necessitate addition of any citations to this page (since we would also have to add the M-W one above, and maybe others): articles (should) already do that.
As well, regarding Canadians, see this section and first subsection. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Description of United States

OK, I'll admit this seems like a stupid topic to require a discussion of, but there has been persistent edit-warring by certain editors over it, so we need to try to reach a consensus and stick with it. The issue is the wording of the second bullet-point on this page: editors have gone back and forth between versions 1, 2, and 3 below; versions 4 and 5 are additional alternatives. Please state one preference and give reasons in the appropriate section below, and add any further comments in the Discussion section. --Russ (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Version 1

Version 1: The United States of America, a country in North America

Prefer Version 2

Version 2: The United States of America, a country in the Americas

  • Preferred, as it circles back to first entry (the Americas) without introducing another notion regarding (a region of) America (i.e. North America). More inclusive, as it allows for inclusion of U.S. in Anglo-America etc. Arguably, also neglects that Hawaii is not in North America but in the Pacific Ocean in Oceania (viz. Polynesia). 69.158.144.108 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Version 3

Version 3: The United States of America

  • Anyone with enough education to be able to read Wikipedia in English is certain to know what the United States of America is; the purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct the reader to the relevant article, and this version is all that is necessary to achieve that purpose. --Russ (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mild preference: too minimalist, perhaps indicating a degree of Americentrism; if this version holds, then 'The Americas' must also be as simple. 69.158.144.108 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This version is more than enough to disambiguate between the two senses of America, and moreover, is the earliest version used at Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 15:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The version is sufficient to identify the thing in question. For what it's worth, I think The Americas would be sufficient for the Americas, since it identifies the item in question to any reader. WilyD 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support, and echoing Russ that no one arriving at this page could conceivably need it further explained to them what the United States is. Regarding the Americas, my mild preference would be to leave it with the brief explanation of the term as it seems conceivable that a non-native English speaker could arrive here and not know the term. I don't really see the point of insisting that further description be used for neither or both but not just one, unless someone hopes to thereby symbolically achieve parity of meaning. Also FWIW, I would leave the present order on the grounds that simply alphabetizing the list is better than arguing over primary meaning. CAVincent (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This description is sufficient for any reader, matches the name of the country as well as the article linked to, has no correctness problems, contains the word "America" (the title of this page), and the relevant information stands out well so you can find or disregard the link at a glance depending on what you came looking for. Quite the obvious choice. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Version 4

Version 4: America (country) or the United States of America

  • There are adequate redirects that match the disambiguation phrase that should be used, with no description needed. America (US), America (USA), and America (United States) are also available. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined toward this version, as it uses the dab term in the bluelink. As a matter of style, I think I would prefer America (country), the United States of America, but I'm not that hung up on it. :) --Tkynerd (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    When using redirect X with target Y, I usually use "[[X]] or Y, a thing of this description", with the description optional. But I'm also not hung up on it, just not hung up on the other side. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    If it were America (country) or the United States of America, a country in North America or something similar (I like those appositives!), I would have absolutely no objection. Is that sort of thing what you were thinking? --Tkynerd (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Object: unclear, and many common publications indicate the multiple uses of America (see talk page) 69.158.144.108 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    What's unclear about it? There's one article linked (clear), it's identified as the United States of America (clear), and no claim that there aren't multiple uses of "America" is made -- indeed, this would be an entry on the disambiguation page, so it's clear there are multiple uses (clear). Also, please don't add new option in the middle of the list. If you have another suggestion, add it to the end of the list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    Why even have this option, as opposed to option 3? By indicating X or Y, there's a possibility it can be misconstrued, as if they were different and mutually exclusive. If someone hasn't browsed Wikipedia before or does so infrequently, this rendition would probably lead to confusion. So, unclear, unclear, and unclear.
    As well regarding the addition of options, I concede moving it only out of amity: but, it has been placed in the article before. Nonetheless, given that this poll was concocted by one person without demonstrated input, its results may not be inviolable. 69.158.144.108 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    This option instead of option 3 because the linked redirect matches the disambiguation; see WP:MOSDAB, esp. WP:PIPING. I'm unaware of anyone ever misconstruing the synonym construct on dab pages as a mutual exclusivity, but if that's the issue, we can use Tkynerd's suggestion America (country), the United States of America. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Version 5

Version 5: The United States of America, a country of the Americas

Discussion

I mostly prefer and voted for version 1 (The United States of America, a country in North America) because I've noticed that most entries in disambiguation pages have a short description; however, I am not opposed to version 3 (The United States of America). I do oppose any description that just says in or of the Americas, as the U.S. is not located anywhere in South America. So version 1 is my first choice; version 3 is my 2nd choice. Kman543210 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this a difficult point of view to understand. After all, saying that "Louisiana is in the United States" does not imply that Louisiana is in all parts of the United States, saying that "France is a country of Europe" doesn't mean that it's necessarily in Eastern Europe, and saying that I'm in my house doesn't imply that I'm in all rooms of my house at once. Thus, the United States can be said to be "in [or of] the Americas" just as Argentina can be said to be "in [or of] the Americas." --Tkynerd (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic Reasoning

I am new to Wikipedia, but as a linguist, I think I can shed some light on the subject. Indeed, America was the name originally applied to all the lands of the New World because they were considered a single continent. However, in the 21st century most of the world (minus many latin cultures such as the Spanish and the Portuguese) consider North America and South America separate continents. From a practical stand point, it would be quite strange to refer to two continents by a single name, principally "America," and their inhabitants by a single denonym, "Americans." Also, considering ambiguity, the United States of America is not the only country to have been called the United States. In fact, in Spanish the official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos yet they refer to their northern neighbor as Estados Unidos. Is their not inconsistency? I must also point out that the word "America" does not exist in every language, either refering to the USA (not the Union of South Africa:-]) or the New World. In Chinese the US is Meiguo, meaning "Beautiful country." Are there not other countries that are beautiful? And in Vietnamese, Hoa Ky, meaning "Flower Flag." Does the Stars and Stripes look like a flower? My point is that regardless of antiquity or definitions in other languages, America in its unqualified self is indubitably the USA in the English language around the world. Just consult Fowlers.Usonano85 (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I might add that The United States of America is the only country that carries America in its official name. Or is there another one? Well the Confederate States of America, but that's history--Ratzer (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A continent has more importance than a country, it doesn't matter if 50% of wikipedia lives in the US

When I think of America, the only thing that pops up in my head is the continent. Why is that? Because I don't live in the United States. In most of the world (and in all if America, except for the US) the word America call a continent, not a country. Until I stumpled on this page, I had never heared the term The Americas, that just doesn't sound good.. Its not only more important to call America the continent instead of a country, but far more important. I think the Americas should be moved to America, with maybe a notice on top for possible the US. --FixmanPraise me 18:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This argument has come up many times, and suffers from the fatal flaw of being demonstratably false. It might behoove you to review the archives of this talk page. WilyD 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not false, and it's in the name "The United states of America", all the other un-unified states and countries on the continents are also on america. I was at least taught in school (and I'm guessing many others) that the landmass on the western hemisphere is called America, and it can be divided into the two continents North and South America. It might be the custom in north america that "America" only means those 50 united states and other territories, but in other places it can differ. — chandler — 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It is false. In most of the world, America is unambigiously the United States of America. Among anglophones, this is probably universal. This is simply the English-language name, it's no different than en:London and fr:Londres. WilyD 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sitting here making things up just so you know. The only reason people have started to call the USA for only America is because the country doesn't have a "real" own name, it has only taken "United states" of "the only continent we currently exist on" If they had had states in Asia or Africa as well it would probably be called the "United states of America and Africa". I don't think the London/Londres example makes any sense in what you're trying to get through, I'd say a better is what have started to happen sometimes with Europe/EU, I've seen mistakes when people refer to "Europe" when they mean the EU. Which is a similar case imo — chandler — 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but WilyD is correct. In English, "America" refers almost universally to the United States. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It might be if you're from North America, but not all over the world. — chandler — 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Most anglophones live in North America, of course, but "I am from America" as an unqualified statement in English is known to be identical to "I am from the United States" everywhere in the world. The point seems to be confused a bit by native Spanish speakers with incomplete grasps of English and probably deliberately confused by American Imperialists, but this is a fairly minor subset. WilyD 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It also apparently is the case, per earlier discussion, that scientists sometimes use "America" to refer to the Americas. This usage is very limited in scope and is not the way the term is generally understood by English speakers. --Tkynerd (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
However, America refers to the Americas in most other languages. --FixmanPraise me 21:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
True or not, that has zero relevance for the English Wikipedia. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this serious Wikipedia? America is NOT the usa, no matter how much you would like to believe it.

And the continent is not called "The Americas". It's called America, period. That's why you say "United states of America". Of America. They are in America, just part of it.

I have a high respect for the Wikipedia, but this kind of usa-centristic articles makes me loose my confidence in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.101.154 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9800E3D81539E433A25753C1A9629C946196D6CF

You want more proof?

In that link you'll find information on WHY America (The Continent) was named America.

This article should go to America(The Continent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.101.154 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. In English, there is no continent called "America." There are two continents, "North America" and "South America." America in English refers to the United States. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that in English there is no continent called America, it is always split in two. Its the same in Britain, America, Canada, Australia and India - which covers most of the world's english speakers. In all these countries America is almost always used for the country. This isn't a case of Anglo-American nationalism, its just a convention in English.
I definetly think this should stay as a disambuguation page, though - I came here looking for a battleship. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that other meanings for a term exist doesn't necessarily mean that the main page for a topic should be a disambiguation page. If there is a primary topic, as I would assert there is here (the United States), then either the article on that topic should be here, or this page should redirect to the article on that topic. Other meanings would be handled with hatnotes. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a somewhat "diplomatic" solution to the issue, but United States is probably where it ought to be (or United States of America, but not here), Americas is where it ought to be. A slightly less preferred solution according to the MOS for what ought to be a redirect but where we can't really prove it conclusively or anything, and where it's not totally bizarre, is not the end of the world. WilyD 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to blame someone for the ambiguity, it's George Washington

The first President of the United States gave that name to the country. This is why, inevitably, America is referred by US citizens as the United States; now, how do I know that, you ask? Remember, he drafted the first Constitution for the US. I think this would be included in the article, (or in this one, on the section about the term's usage). It's just a recommendation of mine, it's OK if you don't find it useful.--201.210.55.128 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Americans"(stateans/unitedians) are very arrogants

The terms America and american not is exclusivity only of ONE country, because pertence of all americans(south americans and north americans)!!! The USA is arrogant and geocentrist/etnocentrist!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.77.13 (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Blatant appeals to racism are perhaps not the most convincing argument. I've known some Americans, and they can be quite nice people, eh? (At least, they probably exhibit the field rate of being arrogant and ethnocentrist.) WilyD 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In English, an American is a citizen of the United States of America, a North American is a citizen of North America, and so on. Thus, a Chilean is not an American, but a South American. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not true. Look in any good English dictionary/enciclopedia. And note that America is the name of the landmass in the Western Hemisphere (regardless of the question whether is one or two continents). So any South American is also an American. Calin99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
Not true. Live in an English-speaking community and you'll find that "America" universally refers to the United States. There are occasional exceptions, primarily in scholarly use (which is why dictionaries cover that usage), but in general usage America=United States and American=related to the U.S./from the U.S., period. PS "Stateans" and "Unitedians" are not English words. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


People who point to dictionary definitions to prove that both meanings are equal are really missing the point. Every American and Canadian I've ever met, when confronted with the statement "Cubans are Americans" would understand what was meant because yes, the definition does exist. They would also look at you strangely because while we all know that American CAN mean that, we also know that it almost never does in English.On Thermonuclear War (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When your very subject heading's wording immediately indicates that your command of the English language is absolute shit, I think you're disqualified from being taken seriously in a debate regarding one of the finer points of English language semantics. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


U.S. Americans are considered U.S. Citizens and not "Stateans" and "Unitedians". American(Can) (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of America = United States of America

"America" should be directed to the "United States of America" and "Americas" should be directed towards the continents. The only country whose name contains the word "America" is the United States of America. Furthermore, its citizens are called Americans. The worldwide consensus is that an American is a person from the United States of America. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to take things into your own hands without seeking a consensus... People from the USA are US Americans, the world doesn't circle around the USA, so go ahead and revert your move — CHANDLER#10 — 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody in English-speaking countries thinks an American is from anywhere but the United States of America. The majority of people who read this English article will be from these countries. Stop pushing your own agenda. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, there are people who use the term "America" to mean the continents; it is not the primary or most common usage, but it does exist. It is used fairly commonly in biological literature, for example. The term is ambiguous and the disambiguation page is appropriate. Editors should refrain from trying to make other people's usage of a word fit their personal predilections. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
People of the United States of America are U.S. Citizens if not U.S. Americans. The only time a U.S. Citizen should use the term American is when refering to themselves as a citizen of the continent America. American(Can) (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

America usually means either:

America usually means either:

1) The Americas

YES: Lawfully, The Americas are recognized Continent-Wide through every government in America and worldwide as "The Continent".

2) The United States of America

CORRECTION: "America" is slang for The United States of America, and does not posses any legal doctrine stating The United States of America is "America". Please refer to "United States" in shortform.

There is no lawfull country named "America" recognized by any government in the world, even in the U.S.A.

Therefore, The United States of America is merely just slang and complete disambiguation to the article and should be removed by lawfull terms of "America" worldwide and local.

American(Can) (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little interest "legal doctrine", but is rather more concerned with actual usage. What you are refering to as "slang" is the single most common usage in the entire world, therefore its inclusion here is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary. Doc Tropics 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has little interest in legalities, then it is subject to criminal activity in misleading the public.

American(Can) (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review our policy regarding legal threats. While your last comment wasn't an explicit legal threat, it certainly leans in that direction. Doc Tropics 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) -- SEWilco (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is, if it's not legal why add it? I'm not making any legal threats, i'm just emphasizing the fact that why should we include something that is not legal into Wikipedia? I say this for the protection of Wikipedia and not to harm Wikipedia!

American(Can) (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no agencies with authority over the meaning of the English language. There is no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" usage. Unlike, say, French, which is governed by the Académie française, English is entirely ungoverned - dictionaries in English are descriptive, not prescriptive (and you'll be unable to find an English language dictionary that doesn't recognise "America" as meaning "the United States" unless you dig up dictionaries that are hundreds of years old (for obvious reasons). So there we are. WilyD 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Entirely beside the point. Disambiguation pages exist to guide readers to topics that they ARE likely to refer to by a particular term. Whether they SHOULD use that term or whether the usage is "correct" or "lawful" or "approved" is simply irrelevant. You are welcome to express your personal, if idiosyncratic, opinions on the latter issue. However, even if you could back up each statement with citations to 100 widely recognized authoritative sources, it would not justify any change in this disambig. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The English launguage is governed first what shall pass with the people as "English Commonlaw" which then, if passed, get's enacted into Parliament. Basically, it's the law in the air which at the time, is law of the land. Now, considering The United States of America as a freelance English Nation does what it wants to anyway, and makes up it's own commonlaws which goes into it's own form of government, let's just say for now, "Democracy". Once a law is passed and is legal, it must be filed and published in print. In this case, the term 'America' as the country of "The United States of America" not only never made it into, let's say, "the U.S. Senate" it has never been enacted into U.S. law itself, which has to be done in order to legalize the term. None the less, 'America' has not been legalized in any nation in the world as a country or has even been legally published as one in singular form. So, we are left with the enactment of "America" legally by all governments in the world as the "Western Continent" but no attempts have ever been made by any government to the singular (word) 'America' as a legal country in the world, allthough yes, it is a nice nickname for The United States of America, it's just not a legal name for The United States of America so far. ;) Maybe in the future it will get passed into law and then legally it can be published, that 'America' is The United States of America. So, i'm afraid that using 'America' in junction with The United States of America is an illegal move and unlawfull to publish as it has never been enacted yet. Hope that helped!

American(Can) (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So my point again is, it's not legal untill it's legal and I don't care if it's the usage amongst all 6 billion people worldwide. American(Can) (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a good laugh is always helpful, thank you. Possibly you are unaware that WP is "hosted" by servers that are physically based in the state of Florida, and therefore required to observe Florida law, but not whatever private opinion you are expressing. As a resident of Florida, I can assure you that there is no law here that prohibits refering to our country as "America". Any further suggestions along the lines you propose should be directed to the kind of blog that encourages semi-coherent rants; they carry no weight here. Doc Tropics 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ICANN is a good laugh too when it comes to international internet law. :) American(Can) (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I motion the removal of "The United States of America from the 'America' article.

A: Wikipedia has not provided any legal sources of the connection between 'America' and The United States of America.

B: Wikipedia has not provided any legal refrence of 'America' to The United States of America.

C: Wikipedia has not established any legal connection of 'America' to The United States of America.

American(Can) (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And you have yet to provide any citations to the contrary besides arbitrary topics not really related to the discussion. Common usage trumps law.--205.202.204.127 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


False name

America is not United States, please you don't call thoom.

America no es Estados Unidos ¡¡¡Entiendanlo!!! 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molinumdeventum. (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Du hast eine kleine mund. Nobody cares dude give up.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency With Spanish Wikipedia

On Spanish Wikipedia, when you type in "America" it goes straight to the continent, and they don't even list "estados unidos" on the disambiguation page ( here [4] and here [5]). You can try and reason over there if you like, but they won't let you change it. The hispanoblantes are more passionate about it than the nativist estadounidenses on this page, and they'll just tell you to take your yankee imperialism elsewhere.

Look, I personally think it's fine to have both go to a disambiguation page, because the word "America" means different things in different languages, not just English and Spanish. In French "America" and "American" usually refers to the United States, while in Portuguese it often refers to the continent. But if the Spanish page is going to go straight to the most common Spanish understanding (the continent) then the English page should go to the most common English understanding (the country). Same standard, please. Tantanto123 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and the Spanish Wikipedia. 95.16.127.14 (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That's incorrect. I'm brazilian(portuguese) and the word 'America' alone is rarely used, and when it happens, it usually means the US, not the continent. The word 'American' or 'americano' in Brazil, 99,9999% of the time means a citizen from the US and it's the most common word to describe a citizen from the US.Thms10 (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Tantanto123, my view is that per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, this page should go to the country because that is undoubtedly by a very wide margin the most common use in English, so it qualifies as a primary topic. I'm OK with keeping it as a dab page to stave off major arguments and bad feeling, but having it go to the continent, as some advocate, would be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and is simply not acceptable. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, Thms10. The term America is frequently used to describe the continent among Portuguese speakers, even if the word "americano" (American) is used to describe a US national. Jgsodre

Auto-archiving

This talk page has archives for old discussions, but so far they have had to be updated manually. I propose to add a template that will direct a bot to archive the page automatically, by moving any discussion topics that have not been edited in the past 60 days. I will wait a week or so before doing this to see if there are any comments or objections to this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

America never existed

It has come to my conclusion since nobody can agree that there are 35 American countries and that every citizen of these 35 countries in the Western Hemisphere are Americans, I have come to believe America never existed. If America existed we would all be American and America would mean either: The Americas and/or It's 35 independent nations, and not just The Americas and The United States of America.

Just think of Europe, are any European countries exempt from being European? No, because they would not be in Europe. Same goes for America, no country in America is exempt from being American. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some serious reconsideration. Regards, American(Can) (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are confused about this. (1) In English, "the Americas" refers to North and South America; "America" refers to the United States of America, with occasional exceptions. (2) As you define "America," it is not a nationality, because a term of nationality describes the people of one country. Peruvian, Venezuelan, Mexican, Canadian: those are nationalities. In English, "American" is also a term of nationality that describes the people of the United States of America and no one else. But as you want to use the term, "American" is no more a term of nationality than "Asian" or "European." --Tkynerd (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Wrong, if you live in Canada your nationality is Canadian. If you live in the United States, you are an American. That is, how it is. Americans are from the United States. America is the United States. Most people in the world use these very basic definitions for the words "America" and "American".

This whole article is stupid and the NPOV needs to be addressed. Who would type in America and not expect to see an article on the United States? Find me one American who calls themselves anything but American? Or one Canadian who calls themselves anything but Canadian? Or one damned Bolivian or Mexican who calls themselves American?

Sorry folks, but this childish argument is intellectually dishonest. America is the United States of America. Not really relevant what people call it in Spanish or Portugese when this is an English Article. Generally written in American English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon3800 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Me. I'm Honduran, I'm American, I'm human and I'm an earthling, and I'm appalled by this discussion. First, I know that U.S. citizens calling themselves just "American" and expecting all the world to use that word just to address them, it's plainly egocentric. And, WP:DEMO, so the majority doesn't rule, but, I really don't think there will be consensus over this topic. Third, I suppose that the use of "American" to denote U.S. Citizens IS ok, considering how a good part of the users of en.wikipedia are from the United States, and it's impossible to teach a whole nation that they are not the center of the universe and that they need to come up with a better gentilic. But, it has an history of uses. The best we can look for is to have some explanation as " America usually means either: 

   * The Americas, the continents of North America and South America
   * The United States of America, especially by it's citizens.

"

For a fact, locally we don't call U.S. citizens Americans; when we are not calling them gringos (I, myself, avoid using that word, even though it's normally not used pejoratively). Normally, "estadounidenses" is used, but, it's far less used than gringos. People that have lived on the U.S.A. though, seem to favour Americans. 205.211.249.24 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

People from the U.S. don't use the term "American" to refer to ourselves because we are arrogant and think we are the only real Americans, we do it because making an adjective out of "United States" sounds very strange to an English speaker. Maybe "estadounidenses" sounds ok to Spanish speakers, but to most English speakers, "United Statsian" sounds very strange. Same way that making an adjective out of "United Kingdom" (United Kingdomite?) would sound strange to Britons. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Americas description

Americas: "The Americas, or America, are the lands of the Western hemisphere or New World, comprising the continents of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions."

Central America: "Central America is the central geographic region of the Americas. It is the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent, which connects with South America on the southeast."

Recent changes[6][7] to this dab: "The Americas, the combined continents of North, Central and South America".

Central America is not a continent. Disambiguation descriptions should be kept brief. A reader looking for "Americas" will find it with the terminologically correct description. Or we could return to no description, which has served to direct the readers so far. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether to list Americas first or the United States first

It looks like in the last few days there is now some back and forth as to whether the United States should be #1 of the top 2 spots, or whether the Americas should be listed first. I don't know why this is happening now as the order was stable for quite some time. My proposal - alphabetical order... 1) the Americas then 2) the United States of America. At least this way we can side step the argument over whether to give precedence to a formal or the most common meaning. In a perfect world, I would like the US first (most common, unambiguous meaning) but this is a compromise I think worth living with. At any rate, I'm going to revert back to the previous long standing version. If you can't live with alphabetical order, why not? CAVincent (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea of alphabetizing what are essentially *search results* is ludicrous. Can you imagine searching Google and getting the top 10 results in alphabetical order?
I also suspect that the same exact people who would promote such an absurd "compromise" would be vehemently opposed to it if the situation was reversed - i.e., if alphabetizing a disambiguation page would lead to their preferred link being listed second instead of first.
Disambiguation pages are intended to help the user quickly get to the page they intend to view. I think it's entirely reasonable to have it in this case, since there is a sizable minority of users who are following the non-U.S. links, but it's just plain nuts to deliberately switch the first and second results purely for the obvious purpose of accommodating anti-American sentiments. alexwebb2 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's not get too over the top about the stakes here, okay? No one with the basic skills to log on to English Wikipedia is going to be lost, confused, or excessively delayed having to pick between two prominent dab options. Also, careful with the accusations of anti-American sentiment, kemosabe. CAVincent (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I do try to assume good faith, but I really think this particular issue has been dragging on for way too long. It happens, sometimes, that these sorts of things - with plainly obvious, objective solutions - just don't get solved due to the fact that it gets so political here on Wikipedia. Reminds me of a case over at the Maryland page where a group of Southerners had tried, repeatedly, to describe it as "a Southern state" - it just gets weird, you know?
I really don't think my proposal should be controversial to anyone - simply switching the top two results to put them in order of relevance to the users who arrive at this page. And it is a case of anti-American sentiment - it's silly at this point to suggest it isn't politically driven. I think it's plain to see that those who want the results listed in reverse order are driven by a general dislike of America or Americans, as evidenced by a number of posts on this page. Seems like they see it as an issue of Americans "claiming" the word 'America', and their knee-jerk reaction is to overcompensate with defensiveness, to the point of listing the results backwards. alexwebb2 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, there are people who hate us for who we are and what we stand for, some of whom are right now plotting the deaths of our countrymen in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Then there are people who are peeved with us because we call ourselves American, some of whom are right now editing Wikipedia to complain. Surely the fact that the latter group, being mostly Latin American, have some real (and some imagined, I think) grievances makes their activities "politically driven" (see the Mexican-American War, Bay of Pigs, Nicaraguan Contras, etc. if you doubt the grievances). However, I would hate to paint both groups with the same "anti-American" brush. And just to play devil's advocate, is it really that hard to imagine that people who are culturally trained to see a Western supercontinent as the primary meaning of the word America find it just as weird that their primary meaning is 'controversial' as we find it weird that our primary meaning is controversial? As far as the issue dragging on... pretty much every Wikipedia page dealing with America, American, etc. has been contentious for years and to some degree they are likely to stay that way. I'm just trying to propose something we can live with that minimizes the edit warring. Oh... also, I tend to blame America first. Sorry 'bout that. (Note: I'm honestly not that strongly advocating the compromise; I could obviously live with the article either way. Just trying to keep the peace.) CAVincent (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Grievances aside (and I don't mean to trivialize them), this: And just to play devil's advocate, is it really that hard to imagine that people who are culturally trained to see a Western supercontinent as the primary meaning of the word America find it just as weird that their primary meaning is 'controversial' as we find it weird that our primary meaning is controversial? demands the obvious response: This is the English Wikipedia, and we must reflect the realities of English usage. We don't, I hope, go to the Spanish Wikipedia and try to tell them that because America primarily refers to the U.S. in English, they must change the Spanish Wikipedia to reflect our usage. That would be wrong there; it is also wrong here. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
After checking MOS:DAB, it seems that the current style recommendation is to list primary links according to similarity in name, with near-matches coming first and "articles with the item as part of the name" coming after them - this would put Americas first. However, if I'm not mistaken, a previous and long-standing style recommendation was to put the links in order of relevance. It seems that this now only applies to the distinction between "classes" of links - i.e., the primary links come before the secondary links (obviously), but within the primary links, it goes by similarity to the disambiguation term and not by strict relevance!
Of course, I could cite WP:IGNORE, but I don't think that'd be particularly classy, given the controversy here. So, I don't particularly like it, but at the moment the article is in compliance with site-wide style guidelines. If there was a vote on whether to treat this as a special case and use the old style for this page instead, I'd vote yes, but I don't think I'm going to put it forth myself. --Alexwebb2 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is the English wikipedia, why are there so many damned Yankees here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

English is spoken worldwide as a lingua franca, which means it is not restricted to the United States. English belongs to the world, not to a specific country. Therefore, the usage of the word America may be different in different parts of the world. I am not a native speaker, but I always chat in English with people from all over the world. For me, America is the continent, not the country, and many other speakers agree. However, I agree that for many speakers, the term is directly associated to the US - a fact that must be considered when writing an article. Jgsodre talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
The operative statement in your post is "I am not a native speaker [of English]." It's not you're native tongue, yet you're trying to impose your beliefs on the conventions of native speakers. Very arrogant in my opinion. As this is English-language Wikipedia, we should go with the conventional usage of NATIVE English-language speakers. 98.221.132.86 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America_(disambiguation)/Archive_2&oldid=1050409846"