Talk:Americas/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Use of the Western Hemisphere in the lead

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

Therefore, can we please change the lead to something like

are lands in the Western Hemisphere

or move the phrase so it reads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·(also the lands of the Western hemisphere)

·are lands of the Western hemisphere

·are the largest landmass in the Western hemisphere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Two Americas

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

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

Can we at least investigate this subject?

Thanks!

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

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

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

Why we are all Americans ???????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, there is *no* country named "America." It is either a continent or a landmass, depending on your model. But its not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

--

We are missing the point here. You can consider the north and south parts of America s just one continent or two continents. But the fact is that the whole landmass in the Western Hemisphere is America. North America and South America are just parts of America, regardless of whether you call it a continent or a landmass. --Calin99 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen many English languages sources refer to the whole thing as the "landmass of America", general English usage is that the combination is "the Americas" (note the plural). That being the reason this page is at "Americas". --Khajidha (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not questioning your model. But if there is two Americas, why the name of the country between Canada and Mexico is United States OF AMERICA? There is no America to begin with in your model, how could it be "of America"? —189.105.108.242 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Overseas regions and dependencies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslims in the United States

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

Changes in "America/Americas"

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

Naming section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to dab pages

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

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

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

Literal translations

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

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

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

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

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

Cities with Muslims

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

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

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

Richard Amerike

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't want to include them w/o RS's, either a source that says such a person existed but has no known connection to the name on the map, or that no such person can be found, or that historian so-and-so advocates this but hasn't attracted a following, etc. But weasel wording like 'has been advanced' and 'have gained little support' without citations is IMO not appropriate for WP. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, Deor, and Kmhkmh are right. The Richard Amerike page has credible sources that the man did indeed exist. That doesn't seem to be disputed what so ever. Given that there really is no concrete proof on the origin of the naming, it's only right that he be mentioned in this section. For him not to be seems to be favoritism. Given the love anything Italian gets, it comes as no surprise to me that any mention of Amerike continues to get deleted from this page, even if the dispute has some notoriety behind it. - Ceejus (talk) 03:45, 07 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardly matters that he existed. The question is whether there are any RS's linking him to the origin of the name. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rating of this page

What is the actual rating of this page? The page itself tells me it is a B-class article, whereas all the wikiprojects bar the canadian geography one rate it as C-class. Interesting inconsistency. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pan-American

because this term is also used as an adjective of america because it avoids ambiguity with the United States this term it is used in the Pan American Games Pan-American Highway Pan-American's health but less effective or Inter demen an answer because in wikipedia came the adjective pan-american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

climates

climates?????? climates of the continent lack ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.24.46 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Official names

We currently only list the names for America in colonial languages (Spanish: América, Portuguese: América, French: Amérique, Dutch: Amerika). The names in the indigenous languages which are official have been deleted, with the rational that they are not found in RS's. They were Quechua: Awya yala, Guarani: Amérika, Aymara: Awya Yala, Nahuatl languages: Ixachitlān. (To these should be added Greenlandic: Amerika.)

Surely we can find sources for these? Nahua WP uses this,[3] though I'm not sure it's RS. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

it's more than that--these have to be official names propounded by some official (like the governments of France & Quebec are official for French names).Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Geonames would be a good place to start. Nightw 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the list, the following are official in some part of the continent: English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Aymara, Quechua, Guaraní, Nheengatu, Dëne Sųłiné, Cree, Dogrib, Gwich’in, Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuvialuktun, Slavey, Haitian Creole, Papiamento, Kalaallisut, Danish, and I think there's some more in South America.

Perhaps it would be best if, in the lead, we stuck to languages that are official in either

a) a national context

b) international context (i.e. official in more than one state, or in a major American intergovernmental organisation)

We can always make a sub-section in the Etymology section to list the remainder. The only difference between the two options is that the last 4 would not be used in the second. Nightw 06:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Results would be Spanish and Portuguese: América, French: Amérique, Dutch: Amerika, Aymara: Amërika, Quechua: Amirika, and Guaraní: Amérika. Source is geonames. Nightw 06:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

according to the dictionary], there is no word in Aymara or Quechua for the Spanish word "América". Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a dictionary so proper nouns are not listed, I assume. "Quechua" and "España" don't get any results either. Nightw 07:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Usage Re: Americano/estadounidense

I noticed that the Portuguese section points out some examples where americano is used to refer to citizens of the United States. Having been raised in South Florida, I've heard many Spanish examples of that very same definition. Would it be worthwhile to search for reliable sources that indicate which Spanish-speaking parts of the world also use americano in addition to, or perhaps instead of, estadounidense, or does the phrase "normally referred to" in the Spanish usage section suffice? Thanks. Magaroja (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if you can find sources, go ahead and add them. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best detailed at American (word). Nightw 21:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

if used in Latin America but also are Americans because America is the continent of America has no name as Argentina brazil canada america was put to the mainland by Americo vesputio investigate this

St.-Dié-des-Vosges was not French in 1507

Other than it is currently suggested by text (section "Naming"), Saint-Dié-des-Vosges was not French in 1507 (or: St. Didel), in fact not before 1766. The area was as Herzogtum Lothringen (duchy of Lorraine) in those times part of the Holy Roman Empire, partly occupied by France in the 17th century and official part of France since 1766. Hence, I suggest to change to: ... both created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in Sankt Didel (today Saint-Dié-des-Vosges in France). -212.144.251.27 (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

subdivisions

lack the subdivision on the map of the Southern Cone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.245.194 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Term America in Spanish, a social class thing

I have an interesting theory they taught us in the University about the matter and that I have witnessed myself here in Venezuela (South America). The term in Spanish America "americano" has a more to do with a couple of things; first, the social status and second; the political view of the person who's talking. Normally, if a person is from upper middle class to high class and tends to be a right winger, he or she would call somebody from the US "americano" . On the other hand, if this person is either a leftist, or belongs to lower middle class or is poor, they would call "americano" to all of us, and "estadounidense", "norteamericano", "yankee" or "gringo" to the US inhabitants.

I invite you to consider this theory, because at least here is truth. It's just a shame I have no cites to back it up. I invite you to share them, had someone of you have one.

It's also truth that in Spain and Mexico the word "americano" tends to mean more and more "US citizen", but again no cites...

I'm sorry if I made any mistake sharing this info, I just think it is important to share it. (Felipebarroeta (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Felipe, look after for the American (word) article. your comment will be more relevant there. Anyway, you should provide reliable sources for this to be taken into account. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

interesting but the reality is that both U.S. residents and those in the Americas are Americans and another point and put in the subdivision of the continent (maps) are very good but lack the southern cone place it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.178.214 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Landmass vs. Continent

The wording of the lead was a result of a mass of hard-won compromises in the past. Mostly in the third archive, see Opening sentence and NPOV; additionally there's an extremely simplified version on about.com. To paraphrase: even within English (not even bringing the discussion in from Spanish) there are differing opinions as to whether there are one (or two) continents comprising the Americas. As guidelines tell us that "within the English Wikipedia, no variety is considered more correct than another", the "Terminology" section scratches the surface of the nuances of using one or the other. As the issue is contentious (and there are some serious geopolitical implications of one versus the other), using "landmasses" in the lead thus avoids this inherent contention outright, and is thus in line with the body of the article. Or as 85.179.105.77 put it in the last sentence of the talkpage NPOV discussion: Yes, that is right, there's no real need to specify here that North America and South America are continents. That's why I am suppresing the continent term from the opening sentence. No need to create controversy from the very first sentence on. Minnecologies^t,c 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are unjustifiably making a mountain out of a molehill. You will note that the previously 'hard-won' text indicates that the Americas comprise the continents of North and South America with their associated islands and regions. The sentence starts off with "In English" then proceeds to indicate its 'often' use to refer to the two continents and associated islands and regions: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/America. It is your opinion that the two main 'landmasses' are anything else in English BUT continents. And, who is it contentious among, a confederacy of dunces? It's an artificial controversy, perhaps perpetrated by non-native English speakers or individuals who don't know better. Lastly, you are suppressing the term ... which is no reason why we need to. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here's your obligatory edit warring warning. You were already well over the three-revert rule but I decided to assume good faith as myself nor any other editor decided to discuss it on the talk page until now, and that is our bad. My personal opinion is that the Americas are consisted of two continents, however, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of one person's opinion. There have been many discussions on this very specific issue in the past with many valid differing points being brought up, and the consensus has been to have it how it is in its present form based on a multitude of sources, in addition to being the direct result of a mediation. Expecting a single example from a singular source to act as an overriding authority is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Merriam-Webster does not serve the role of the Académie française for the English language. Perhaps you'd be interested in wading through the numerous past discussions, and improve your reasoning for your proposed changes? Minnecologies^t,c 19:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Before you opine again about the discussions and mediation giving rise to the lead, please note that - throughout - 'continent(s)' is noted, not 'landmass(es)' . This only recently changed as the result of editors who have overinflated apparent bias and haven't clearly demonstrated the need for change. Merriam-Webster is provided as a succinct source to prove the point, yet there are others, and if you also consult the definitions of North and South America, they are described solely as continents. (The sentence of note also begins with "In English," and 'often', so that defines the parameters of discussion for the lead; other langs are expanded on later in article.) You have provided no sources to support using vague terms in favour of sourced specific ones. Everything else is bluster. Only when you can reputably dissuade why it should be changed, which you haven't, should it be. And consider this a warning to not insinuate unsourced content reflecting your opinion alone or a perceived neutral one despite the undue weight of it in English, as a just cause for edit warring. 76.67.16.43 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Minnecologies is right. I totally support your neutral view on this issue. Not to mention the "anonymous" IP user is a well known vandal and POV pusher from several years ago that shields himself from scrutinity using anonymous IPs. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Who calls America a "continent" in English? Isn't that a Latin conception? AFAIK, all English-speaking countries count America as two continents. — kwami (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alcotv, 13 December 2010

America as a name given to the United States of America

Most NON-English speaking countries, specially in Latin America and Europe, refer to people from the USA as "Estadounidenses", "Etats-Uniens", etc. (United Statian) which is the right way to call them, because anyone who's born in the American Contienent, it's an American.

It's like if there was a country in Europe, named United States of Europe, and they auto call themselves "Europeans", anyone how lived in Europe would be an European, not just people from that country; in the same way, anyone who lives in America(s) is an American not just people from the USA.

All peopke who lives in the America Continent are Americans, from Canada to Argentina. Alcotv (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Alcotov believes that citizens of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Canada, etc, call themselves "Americans" when speaking English. Not true. they use terms like "Latin American," or "North American". Rjensen (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Southern Cone????

lacks the Southern Cone in subdivision maps please check the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.43.157 (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jilly5001, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under language, this article notes that the French language is notably used in Louisiana. I would also add that it is also used in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Jilly5001 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From their proximity to Canada I assume? The sentence in the article says it is of great importance to Louisiana (unsourced though). Is it equally important to the identities of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

please ask the region's lack Southern Cone adds that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.180.187 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Done --Darkwind (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The America Problem again

Citing from the first section of the article: "the singular form America is more commonly used to refer to the United States of America." While it is talking about the English language and this is true in the USA, this is not so the case in most of the other parts of the English-speaking world. Although it has two references, we should remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and we should therefore not assume that because it is done one way in the USA it is done the same way elsewhere. This is getting into POV issues, as if the author of that statement is an 'American', it could be a biased opinion as well as biased sources. I would change the sentence to say something along the lines of: "In the United States of America, the singular form America is commonly used to refer to the nation itself." This would get over the POV issue and does not necessarily imply that English-speakers outside the the USA do not use the word America to refer to the USA. It would, however, be nice to have sources from other countries. I won't get too involved in this article, as I have other projects here in Wikipedia of my own, so I leave it up to you regulars in this article to debate this. Wingtipvortex (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wingtipvortex has not provided any reliable sources for his opinions on English usage outside the United States. He is contradicted in Marjorie Fee and Janice MacAlpine, Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (2008) page 36 which says "In Canada, American is used almost exclusively in reference to the United States and its citizens." Likewise, The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary; The Canadian Oxford Dictionary; The Australian Oxford Dictionary; and The Concise Oxford English Dictionary all specify the USA in their definition of "America". Rjensen (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox

I couldn't find this discussed in the talk archives; forgive me if it's been discussed before.

Is there some criteria for the languages listed in the infobox at the top of the page? I'm wondering specifically why Dutch is included while Quechua is not. I realize that Dutch has official status in Suriname, but Quechua has official status in Bolivia (and I think Paraguay, too, but I'd have to double-check), plus Quechua has many more speakers in the Americas than does Dutch.

It is, of course, impractical to include all of the languages spoken in the continent(s) in that box, but shouldn't there be some non-arbitrary basis for deciding which ones are included? Cnilep (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the list of official languages by aprox number of speakers should be as follows: Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, Quechua, Haitian Creole, Guaraní, Aymara, Dutch.

Apart from those there are other widely spoken, recognised though not official, languages, such as: Mayan languages, Nahuatl, Antillean Creole.

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnology section looks wrong

It is not sourced, is it right? Surely the population is made up from decendents of almost all ethnic groups. "The population of the Americas is made up of the descendants of seven large ethnic groups and their combinations. The Indigenous peoples of the Americas, being Amerindians, Inuit, and Aleuts. Those of European ancestry, mainly Spanish, British, Irish, Italian, Portuguese, French, Polish, German, Dutch, and Scandinavians. Mestizos, those of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry. Those of Black African ancestry, mainly of West African descent. Mulattoes, people of mixed Black African and European ancestry. Zambos (Spanish) or Cafusos (Portuguese), those of mixed Black African and Amerindian ancestry. Asians, that is, those of Eastern, South, and Southeast Asian ancestry. Those from the Middle East (Middle Easterners)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong with that section. "Descendents of seven large ethnic groups and their combinations" sounds like there would be 7 uncombined groups and an uncertain number of combinations of those groups. The listing here contains 5 ethnic groups (Indigenous, European, African, Asian, and Middle Eastern) and 3 combination groups (Mestizos, Mulattoes, and Zambos/Cafusos). Even if the original author meant to say that the seven groups included both the ancestral separate groups and new mixed groups there are 8 groups listed here. --Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Population Center Table

A fellow editor to the Americas article felt that to refer to a city is to refer to the metro area and not the city proper. However it would seem that the city proper is indeed being referenced. Often a metropolitan area is composed of numerous cities and therefore to refer to the New York metropolitan area as simply New York is extremely inaccurate and misleading as people know that cities such as Jersey City are included in the metro area. It also seems logical to list the city proper population before the metropolitan area population. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Common practice when referring to cities or especially a list of cities here in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is to list the whole metro area population, because in the real world people always think about cities as a whole (if they are part of a metropolitan area). You don't consider or think about Paris as a 2 million inhabitants city, you say and think about Paris as a 14 million inhabitants city. The same applies for London, Tokyo, Mexico City, etc. Also this has always been the standard use here: list first metro population and then city proper. I also believe that using "city proper" first is too pushy, since nobody thinks about Sao Paulo as the America's largest city. It's just too pushy and falls very close to the boosterism circle.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again I disagree. Paris is considered a city of two million and is considered to have a metropolitan area population of fourteen million. Also, please refer to my example of New York City and Jersey City. I am aware of no standard that dictates having the metropolitan area population before the city proper population; if one exists, by all means link to it so I can read it. The only place that I have observed a table of this type is in this article. Listing the city proper population first also has nothing to do with boosterism but more with listing the most logical first and then expanding. Saying São Paulo is the Americas largest city is not "pushy" as it is fact supported by the Census data of Brazil. Wikipedia's initiative is to maintain prose based on facts and not opinions, such as the one where no one views São Paulo as the Americas largest city; and in São Paulo's defense, Mexico City is generally not considered the largest "city" in the Americas. To the general populace, New York City maintains that title. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit of reality here people, please. Different countries have different approaches to formally defining a city. The general public, at least outside the USA with its very narrow definitions, just sees a city as a big metropolitan area with a lot of people, bounded by non-built up areas. It's the only sensible comparison. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right HiLo48 most of the people in the world approach to the concept of city as an urban big area that usually takes the name of the core city. Karnifro (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if this is the case, Wikipedia texts should not mislead with ideals that a city and its urban area are completely coterminous. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 10:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of commonly accepted definitions, would it not be more reasonable to list City Proper populations first. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 09:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the metropolitan area holds precedence over the city proper, especially as city proper boundaries can just change at the whims of its government. We can alter the wording to metropolitan area instead of city or something so as not to mislead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not familiar with the term "city proper". Is it a formal one in some places? It certainly isn't in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a term for the city as defined by the jurisdiction of the city council or whatever the equivalent is. Wikipedia has an article on it City proper, interesting. You're right it's not common in Australia, although the equivalent for say Melbourne would probably by the CBD. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmkunkdavis, HiLo48 and Karnifro. Metropolitan area should be the first criteria. As I already said, in the real world, when you say "City of Paris" you think about the whole metro area, not just the "city proper". And frankly, this seems to be an attempt to put Sao Paulo ahead of NYC and Mexico City by cherry-picking "city proper" instead of the most broad definition. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not comprehensible that by using census data from the governments of countries within the Americas one is "cherry picking" by being inclusive of the largest cities. It just so happens that São Paulo is indeed the largest city. Your repeated cherry picking claim is without reason as both the city proper and metropolitan area populations are in use. Perhaps the best thing to do is to split the tables as the city proper populations are not far ahead of cities like Buenos Aires. In the United States the city proper definition is wide spread because there are other recognized cities. No one in San Diego would consider the neighboring cities of Carlsbad or Encinitas as San Diego. The umbrella term San Diego is not in use to refer to the whole metropolitan area, as is the case with most US cities. Thus to Americans, the organization and layout of the table can be misleading. I again say that prose in Wikipedia should not mislead with ideals that a city and its urban area are completely coterminous. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it really odd to place NYC ahead of Sao Paulo and Mexico City just because it is al "alpha city" in a certain cities classification. NYC is neither the most populous metro area nor city proper. It seems to me like a childish attitude just because I reverted 08OceanBeach[4][5] placing Sao Paulo in the first place, he edited and placed NYC ahead[6]. The table is discussing population, not "alpha, beta or gamma" city classification. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realized picture order had any precedent in this article. I also find it odd that my comments were ignored and only reputed with further argument instead of addressing the subject at hand. Regardless, I have found a simply solution. Since they are equals in one way or another, and since they all maintain first in one category, the names will be listed alphabetically and systemically increase from the City proper definition to the broadest at the metropolitan area. Another option: since we are talking about the "real world" and "worlds largest cities", I found this article, that answered the question with ease and is based on a standard we can all hopefully agree upon: that of the United Nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_agglomerations_by_population_%28United_Nations%29, to. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 4 users in favoring the use of metropolitan area instead of city proper. Why would you edit the article the opposite way and placed Sao Paulo first? This is just childish and plain boosterism. I will revert to the status quo since a large majority favors metropolitan area. I don't agree about going with the concept "Urban agglomeration". It is even more confuse and seems that you favor it only because it list Sao Paulo ahead of NYC and Mexico City. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You fail to address the key points in most of my responses. First of all do not revert until a proper consensus has been reached. Also the table matches the prose now as it says that all cities are first in one population category. You repeatedly fail to address that São Paulo is first in the city proper population because census populations say so. You also failed to acknowledge that the cities are listed in alphabetical order. I believe I pointed it out because the results are based on the standards and criteria of the United Nations, and therefore, in a sense, a supranational organization with a voice from most every country in the world. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello to everyone. It is better to go with metropolitan area.I want to add that city proper is a concept that was invented for use in politics since it identifies the administrative-political division of a territory. City proper is an obsolete term when applied to demography of cities, and especially to big cities such as Tokyo, Seoul, London, NYC, Mexico City, Sao Paulo or others. I have to agree with the other users. The metropolitan area statistics are far better than the very limited concept of city proper. At least in Europe and Asia when you think of a city, you think about it as a whole metropolitan city. 94.125.179.5 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

All populations for the three definitions are currently listed with the cities in alphabetical order. Therefore there is no bias to definition and rank. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but why would you edit against a majority of 5 vs 1? And then you seem to want to force it your way by expressing a somehow warning of 3RR to the other editors? You are the only editor in favor of city proper, so yes, it seems too pushy and biased to re-insert the table and picture alignment that you like. 94.125.179.5 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am pushing city proper. The list and photo order is based on a strictly alphabetical order. For instance, Mexico City, listed first in both the list and photo stack, is the largest metropolitan area. I see no City proper "push." Two days is also not a long enough time to reach a majority. A discussion regarding a move concerning the Greater Los Angeles Area lasted a month before consensus was reached. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A majority has expressed its opinion, you sir seem to be the only one pushing city proper instead of metropolitan area. And if you think that we should wait more, then why are you still editing? I believe that you should then wait and let the article in its previous state before you started editing. I have often seen your behaviour in editors that no matter what, want their own POV included in the page. 94.125.179.5 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's clarify this usage of "city proper" a little further. The article is about "Americas", not just (the United States of) "America". I have learnt here that the term is used in the latter place as a name for a legally defined area for political purposes. Is it used elsewhere in the "Americas"? (In other languages were appropriate?) If it is only used with a formal meaning in the USA, it really doesn't belong here. Whatever the truth, if it going to be used here, it obviously needs a clear definition IN the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is only used with a formal meaning in the USA - I believe the EU maintains a similar definition. Also, since a United States of America city is represented the list should be inclusive of the city proper definition. I believe the metropolitan area population is now listed "first", if that was the issue, it has not been resolved. Though I point out the table is no longer based on an unbiased alphabetical format. *I put brief definitions for each population category thought the terms are not uniformly defined. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I asked about usage in The Americas, not the EU, which is hardly relevant. And demanding that the term be applied just because an American city is in the list is classic US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me I must have misread. Canada maintains a similar definition as both Canada and the U.S. have City limits (relatively coterminous with city proper) to define cities. It makes perfect sense that I suggest one of the three basics concepts used to defined population be kept in the list. I hardly demanded, I suggested and gave a logical reason. As NYC is in the list and in the United States, the city proper definition is defining of New York City and thus its population should be noted. How can having a city proper definition in the table be central when there are two other definitions. Also something from the city proper article to point out, Mexico provides city proper data for most cities, for some large cities, such as Guadalajara, Mexico City or Monterey, only agglomeration data are given. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 23:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, many countries have a similar definition for city limits. However, when discussing the city as a whole, in what I would say is the vast majority of cases it refers to the entire metropolitan area, even if its administratively divided. I actually don't know any country other than the USA which has these restrictive common usages of city. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the most astounding facts that I have accidentally learnt from Wikipedia is that Soldier, Kansas is a city with "a total area of 0.2 square miles (0.4 km2)" and a population of 122. Americans may be able to deal with such a definition of city, but I don't think I ever will. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole issue was that the Metropolitan Area population was not listed first in the table, and the City Proper was. But that's not the case anymore, since I was finally able to understand the other editor's issue. So I believe the problem has been resolved. As the three basic population concepts are now in use, it should satisfy all editors who prefer one over the other.

Australian definitions are not exactly logical and easily understood by Americans as well HiLo48. For instance, Perth is said to have 1.6 million people, but the City of Perth has a mere 5,113 and an area of 5 mi². 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The current table has three columns called rank, which is confusing. Also, there are no units, which is a problem.

Well, as every Brisbaner knows, the other Australian cities are just strange for dividing themselves up like they do ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

{Edit conflict} Yes, it's clumsy, but at least the Perth, Western Australia article starts off with "The City of Perth is a local government area..." It doesn't pretend to be what the general public recognises as a city. And Australia is inconsistent. Across the country, Brisbane is said to have an area of "1,994.0/sq mi", which includes most of the traditional metropolitan area. And even that one is confused by the fact that the built up areas of Brisbane and the neighbouring city of Gold Coast are beginning to physically bump into one another, creating a much larger metro area. This all says to me that those formal political boundaries don't tell us much at all about real cities. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this has taken so long. It is clearly obvious that a solid majority backs the use of metropolitan area instead of city proper. That said, I don't object including the city proper statistics as a secondary source of information, since this data has always been in the table: first column for metro area and second column for city proper. It is just not appropiate or useful to go by "city proper" data when discussing demographics. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware of what your issue is. I thought it had been resolved? Mexico City is now listed first through having the metropolitan area population first. Demography also recognizes three basic criteria for population: city proper, metropolitan area, and urban area. Therefore it is inappropriate to suggest that the metropolitan area definition is the sole definition to go by. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 04:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pics

Hello the new pictures in the cities sections are way too big! I think they need to be resized back to normal. They just take too much space. Don't you think? Karnifro (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Deor (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• • They were made smaller, perhaps they can be reduced in size again? 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"City proper" POV

Accordingly with the city proper article:

In simple terms, city proper is the area within the city limits.

So, there's no need to write and include a very elaborated definition of this concept. Recent additions tend to privilege the idea that "city proper" is the main concept used to define what a city is. In reality, as the article say, it is a recent term. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• • The reversion of the definitions was unwarranted. There is no "simple" way of stating them. Thus I feel the bulleted definitions should be re-instated. Plus it does not make sense in English to say "Mexico City - The largest metropolitan area in the Americas" when the city, not the metropolitan area, is being WikiLinked; that is why one would say "anchor to", as the city is being linked. Regardless of the City Proper definition being recently introduced, it has become one of the main definitions. I can see in no way how the city proper definition is being advocated as the main defining concept of a city, when it is stated that there are indeed three main concepts. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of the problem. There are at least two urban cities in the US and probably elsewhere. One is the city with geographical limits which are often unchanging or maybe unchangeable. The other is the "metro" which fluctuates. One should be clear when using one term or the other. Metros should be compared against metros, geographical/political cities against cities with the same type of limitation. In the above example, it is either Mexico City or "The metropolis of (greater) Mexico City." There is no ambiguity. Since the metropolis often overlaps other genuine cities, one cannot impute the same things to them as to regular cities. For example, they may not share a government, or a police force, or responsibility for roads, but maybe an economy or much of anything except adjacent houses and apartments and usually roads. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rising language

I would propose a small edit in the language senction. Recently Japanese is becoming a popular language in Mexico thanks to migrations and other things. So I suggest that is added to the countries the language is used in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akakeimei (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

America in Nahuatl as well

I come from a family in Mexico City that speaks both Spanish and Nahuatl. I have been informed that America is mostlu known as "Ixachitlan" among Nahuatl speakers, despite the widespread use of "Amerika" as well. In the section where the names for the continent in different languages are, there is no Náhuatl voice for the continent that has more than 1 million speakers, whereas Dutch, which has less than 1 million, has its word for America. I hereby most humbly request that the Nahuatl voice be added, but not at the expense of removing any other voice. If references are needed, the well known online Spanish-Náhuatl "Aulex" Dictionary points it out here: http://aulex.org/es-nah/?busca=am%C3%A9rica.

Thank you all very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsinche (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. The Nahuatl word has been added. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

TYPO: large areas between the Rock and Appalachian mountains.

I found this typo: "large areas between the Rock and Appalachian mountains." It should refer to "Rocky" mountains. Was not allowed to edit the change myself, so I thought I'd post it here.

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Deor (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest urban centers

I find a notice I receive on my talk page amusing: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Americas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. My edit summary plainly stated Removing section - it only mentions and gives undue weight to three cities in the Americas. One whole section in this article dedicated to mentioning only three cities and their metropolitan and urban areas simply gives them to much undue weight. Their collective population isn't even that large compared to the overall population of the America. If anything it is a subtle form of boosterism in favor of New York City, São Paulo, and Mexico City. I advocate for its removal in accordance with Wikipedia's undue weight and boosterism policies. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda tired of your "Mexico vs brazil" agenda (that a simple collection of diffs from your edit summary will show). Weren't you the one that tried to list Sao Paolo first in this section back in May? [7] Weren't you the one that favored the (very limiting) concept of "city proper" just to get Sao Paolo listed first? Weren't you the one that added a whole (unnecessary) explanation of each concept? [8] All of these POV forks of yours were dismissed and now you use the argument of "boosterism" to remove this section, just because Sao is not listed first? Plainly hypocritical.

Now, cut to the chase. It happens that Mexico City, NYC and Sao are the largest urban centers in the Americas. However your concerns can be easily addressed by adding several other cities to the table until we complete a top 10 (for example). But a simple deletion of an already worked subarticle is just section blanking and it constitues a form of vandalism. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it again amusing that you create agendas for myself, when I myself do not know of or have such agendas! My edit history shows that very clearly. It is only by not assuming good faith and viewing everything as a contest to be first that one would assume I have an agenda. I was not trying to list São Paulo first, but, rather I was trying to go by the city proper concept; which I believed to be the most accurate portrayal of a city, as other cities in the metropolitan areas maintain their own identities separate from the core cities. The Americas are much more than the "10 largest urban centers;" and having a whole section that is a table of the largest urban centers is unnecessary. If anything, prose is warranted in the section, and should focus more on infrastructure, culture, and history of the urban centers. But then again the city's articles provide that information and thus it is unnecessary. It is boosterism plain and simple. It would better be integrated in a general population section. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are more than 10 cities in the Americas. However, tables (and especially Top 10 tables) are very useful and widely used here in Wikipedia. They help summarize information for subsections, help reducing the article KB size (especially when used in the form of templates) and provide the reader a quick reference about a topic. If the user is interested in learning more about a particular topic, they can always click the "main article" headers. It is still hypocritical to try to blank a whole section that you agreed with and even edit-warred for. Just add more cities, I honestly believe that's the best solution if you are really concerned about "boosterism". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not hypocritical but reflects greater understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. It would still be a form of boosterism. An article on a large continent should not focus on the ten largest cities/metropolitan areas/urban areas. There are no such tables in the Asia, Eurasia, Europe, Africa, or Australia articles. At most, the content should be converted to prose and merged into a population section. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 November 2011

 Not done - no request made - Copy and past from Perspectives on Haiti: Looking at the Past to Understand the Present removed.

Vladi Dadi (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Population

The population numbers are a little strange. There is a division throughout the article between north and south america. The numbers for population include central america in north america, and this makes at least some sense since the tectonic plate for central america is the north american plate. But the Caribbean is not a part of north america, at least not geologically (politically it is as much a part of south america as north america). Not sure how to handle it (and sourced numbers instead of just stating a number would be nice), but I'd vote to remove the Caribbean from the population totals entirely, perhaps like this:

• North america ~490 million
• South america ~385 million
• Caribbean ~39 million

--— robbie ^{page talk} 13:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)