Talk:Americas (terminology)/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Misuses

Perhaps a section documenting common missuages or confusions of terms might be appropriate? That would explain - in more detail - the (mis)uses of terms such as Columbia/Colombia and America, and the possible reprecussions of these? Robdurbar 10:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is already addressed somewhat at Columbia; I've since added a link to that article. To expand on the topic in this article would detract from its primary purpose. When creating this article, it was intentionally decided to only model it on British Isles (terminology) in title only precisely because of that article's volume and lack of focus/sourcing. Perhaps varied usage of other terms as proposed requires a dedicated article instead – e.g., Columbia (terminology)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested page moves

I'd like to suggest that Americas (terminology) be moved to America.

"America" has historically meant the entire continent (or as some geographers might say, "both continents"). It is not just the country which evolved from the 13 British colonies into "the United States of America". At all times during this evolution, the "USA" consisted of only a small portion and there has been plenty left over.

Geographically, America (continent) has been divided (at least in the English speaking world) into North America and South America. However, socially and culturally there is another significant division: Anglo-America and Latin America.

In the Spanish language, the terms norteamerica and norteamericano do not include Mexico or Central America. Curiously, in English the terms "North America" and "North American" typically do include them. This causes confusion or irritation to Mexicans and other residents of "the Americas".

  • A Mexican will typically say that he is "an American" since the continent he was born on is called America (at least in his own language).
  • A Mexican will rarely or never refer to himself as a norteamericano.

Pimsleur's Spanish (a language course geared toward native speakers of English) cautions students to be aware of the usage of the Spanish term norteamericano and how it relates to the U.S. usage of "American" and "North American". --Uncle Ed 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the article America is doing an excellent job of (1) being a disambiguation page for the various meanings and uses of the word America that might prompt a Wikipedia user to enter it into the search field and (2) attracting vandals and the like away from other articles. The article Americas (terminology), on the other hand, treats some of the issues you've brought up above. I don't see a reason to move the latter into the space held by the former. At this time, the article Americas (terminology) does not treat how Spanish-speakers label various areas of the western hemisphere. There is another article (Use of the word American) that does discuss how American is used differently by both Spanish- and English-speakers. -Acjelen 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement, Acj. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


No one, except U.S. citizens and some Britons and other English-speakers (but not all), refer to the U.S. as America. I personally know people from at least 20 nations in the world (America, Europe, Asia and Oceania) that do not call the United States as "America". The only place you will see foreigners calling the U.S. "America" will be in films and movies made in the U.S. --Cuyaya 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the weight of that use. In the U.S., America and American are used to mean the United States in a constant, pervasive, overwhelming way. This use is as likely to cease in the United States as its citizens are to give up English for Mandarin Chinese. -Acjelen 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international and global resource and thus, if you say "commonly refered to as America", it would incorrectly imply that everyone around the world calls the U.S. 'America'. Reference to the fact that only U.S. citizens do so is imperative in this case to convey what really goes on in the world. If this were "Wikipedia U.S.A", then so be it, but it's Wikipedia English.--Cuyaya 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"What really goes on in the world" is that America is a common noun and American a common adjective for the United States. Is it illogical? Yes. Is it misguided? Sure. Does it cause translation problems with Spanish. Definitely. But I'm not sure why the Spanish language should disrupt the English Wikipedia. -Acjelen 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is common, but only in the U.S.. And it has nothing to do with Spanish translations or any other language. Also, I deal with Britons all the time at work, and they preffer to use the expresion "The States". If a clear and truthful explanation can be given, why omit it? I won't argue with you the fact that the adjective American IS used worldwide, but that's another issue, which I am not denying. --Cuyaya 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New second paragraph

Hawkfly, I don't see the need for your new second paragraph. Will Wikipedia readers find this article excepting treatment of the United States? As you write yourself, no one uses Americas in the plural to refer to the United States. Perhaps if you explain your thinking here in on the discussion page, I and other editors will understand. -Acjelen 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have nixed this contribution. First, while not necessarily disagreeable, it is unsourced. Second, the article already clearly delineates various meanings. Third, the syntax and grammar leave much to be desired. Lastly, the usage note is better dealt with elsewhere (e.g., Use of the word American). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with those points. However, this is not mentioned on that page. I will make a smaller note of farther down on the page with a source. Hawkfly 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As above: usage details are better placed in Americas and/or Use of the word American, not in this article (intended as a brief overview; see Columbia chat above) nor on the DAB page which is meant to succinctly clarify ambiguities and not embellish on extraneous information regarding usage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, they are better placed here. It is about the use of the word Americas, not American. The page title refers to the terminolgy of the Americas- just what the very short paragraph is about. Hawkfly 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I have moved it (the redone paragraph) to America. You have enough trouble with vandalism and people changing the order that I will save you the annoyance of continuing this debate. Hawkfly 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Great. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americas vs. America

I went to a bookstore in New York City yesterday. They had a nice, rolled-up wall map showing North and South America labelled collectively as America. This is the first time in my life I've seen this. I guess times have changed, and American English along with it.

I daresay "the Americas" is more a term which refers to the several entities called "(blank) America". Now, bowing to the inevitable, it seems that America (region) or America (continent) is the preferred geographical term.

There is no use fighting over this, merely because there is a fight over the Use of the term American. Some people want "America" and "American" to refer to America (USA) and others don't. We should just be clear and helpful to our readers. --Uncle Ed 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All this is fine and good, but it doesn't obviate sourced and clear definitions already indicated. Moreover, the Americas article expatiates on the topic of usage. Apropos: the UN, in its geographic scheme for sub/regions, clearly delineates contituents within the Americas, including North and South. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location of Mexico

One of the hemisphere maps (Image:LocationWHNorthernAmerica.png) shows Mexico in "Northern America", which contradicts the UN definition of this subregion. Please clarify. --Wing Nut 08:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. This is some kind of error. I don't recall that black band at the bottom of the image either. If anyone knows how to fix it, that would be appreciated. -Acjelen 14:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, someone changed the image yesterday. Good eye Wing Nut. I've restored it now. -Acjelen 14:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrangement

User 69.156.112.143 has repeatedly refused the arrangement placing Central America and the Carribean under Narth America. What does everyone else think? Jaxad0127 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the arrangement. -Acjelen 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not wholly resistant to the current placement/arrangement, but some sources do indicate that territories in the Caribbean and Central America are also part of South America (e.g., eastern portion of Panama, Trinidad, Aruba). THus, I prefer an alphabetical arrangement or the prior one. 142.150.134.49 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The physical definition of North America is north of South America. So, in the geophysical section, I think they should fall under North America. But in other sections, I think different interpretations are very appropriate. Jaxad0127 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please qualify this "physical definition" of North America (as above); various citations in the article do not do so per se, and others yet differ. Mind you, I do not disagree with the general sentiment herein, but this article is intended to promote clarity and impartiality ... not the opposite. Take a glance at the talk page for South America to demonstrate just how contentious this can be. 69.156.113.249 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have more than one arrangement:
  1. The most popular, historical arrangment(s) first; followed by,
  2. The UN geoscheme
The whole point of this article on terminology is to defuse the edit wars over what is the "correct" arrangement, classification and naming of the various countries. --Wing Nut 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. But we still need to define the historic one. And we may need to change the maps when we're done. Jaxad0127 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What if we define the geophysical arrangement based on Plate tectonics? That would put most of Central America as part of the Carribean, with Mexico being part of North America. Jaxad0127 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with defusing edit wars, which is the intent of this article and I believe it has held rather well since its creation, but different interpretations are now being interposed without citations: everything in the article (at least previously) was based on this. That's why the status quo (with an alphabetical rearrangement of items) is both correct and impartial vis a is a hierarchical one.
Otherwise, I'm unsure what the point of the above and recent edits are. We should not be 'defining' anything: citations et al. should guide content editions ... and I see little of that above. Plate tectonics is but one aspect of physiography (physical geography). And while I'm a big supporter of the UN geoscheme, we must not place undue weight on it given other definitions cited. Moreover given that the content and maps have prevailed for some time without any changes and are not incorrect (how are they, BTW?), and with proposed changes not indicated or unclear, I see little reason to change them now; . 65.92.173.34 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)