Talk:United States#Population of the US

This redirect is so offensive to all other nations on this continent. English language Wikipedia community is so US-centric and jingoistic that offending other nations passes as no problem and goes entirely uncontested. So disgusting. Peter1c (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe we could edit and change America to a disambiguation page. ChenSimon (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::I completely support removing the "America" redirect to a disambiguation page such as this proposal. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have any evidence that the United States is not the primary topic for "America"? We did some surveys below which seem to show that it is. -- Beland (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sure, it is probably what the vast majority of Americans are referring to when they say "America". But around the world? Especially in all the other non-U.S. countries of the Americas? I don't think so. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you have any evidence that supports your thinking? The evidence gathered below about people who speak English in Brazil indicates they do mean the United States when they say "America". What they mean when speaking other languages is not relevant to the English Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's because the most common usage of the term "America" is to refer to the U.S. People usually call the continents "North America", "South America", or "the Americas" rather than just "America". It's a reflection on how U.S.-centric the world is, not just Wikipedia.

:Other uses of the term are listed at America (disambiguation).

:If you wish to have "America" be a disambiguation page instead, you could start a discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion ApexParagon (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::"Most common usage" by whom? (Personally, I blame the British for the common use of "America" to refer to the United States.) I don't use it. When you want to refer collectively to Canada and the United States, do you seriously say, "Canada and America"? That just sounds ignorant. Considering all that the word "America" encompasses, it's only logical to have a disambiguation page. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::A hear a lot of people say "North America" when they mean the U.S. and Canada, with or without Mexico and the Caribbean. -- Beland (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Beland How do you know they mean just the U.S. and Canada? They might actually mean all of N.A., including Greenland, Hawaii, and Central America. Referring to N.A. is like referring to "Asia". They're too encompassing to be thrown around casually. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::From context, for example when all the cities mentioned in the conversation are in the U.S. and Canada but none are in Latin America or on islands. Or if they are talking about NAFTA or the North American Numbering Plan, then it's clear that Mexico and the Caribbean are included, respectively. Or by convention. North American International Auto Show is on the US-Canadian border. North American English is spoken natively only in the U.S. and Canada. American English is spoken natively only in the United States.

:::::Yes, many Americans say "Asian people" when they are only referring to people from East Asia, and often it is clear what is meant but sometimes it is confusing and sometimes people from other parts of Asia complain about that usage. You can disagree with that if you like and ask everyone to always speak in formal and unambiguous terms and not have casual conversations, but that's a question for real-world politics rather than Wikipedia. Wikipedia's job is to use language clearly in its own articles, and help readers find the articles they are looking for as quickly as possible. I could come up with some explanation why "Canada and America" sounds weird, but we tend to look at relatively formal usage in reliable sources rather than what people say on the street. Hence the results I reported further down in this thread of which meanings of "America" (singular, not in a list, which is what this redirect is for) dominate for news sources, academic articles, and search engine users. -- Beland (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Almost everyone knows "America" to be the U.S. And what do you mean no one says "Canada and America"? They say that just as much as "Canada and the U.S." BeProper (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, Wikipedia's usage of "America", "American", and related terms to primarily refer to the US, its people, etc., is very far from uncontested. The issue has come up time and again for discussion, and we continue to treat such terms this way for the simple reason that among native English speakers (and not just in the US), these terms primarily refer to the US. The editors who regularly work on these pages, very much including Americans such as myself, are quite aware of the issue and that Wikipedia's conventions on this are not universally approved of. I certainly have no jingoistic desire to offend the people of other nations. I also have no national demonym to refer to myself other than as an American. CAVincent (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:*First, above all, this is already mentioned in the FAQ.

:*This is the latest discussion, for reference.

::*Additionally, to quote the OP: {{TQ|Usage in Spanish &c. should not dictate usage on the English Wikipedia, per WP:USEENGLISH}}

:*This is outlined in American (word)

:*It's worth noting that [https://www.google.com/search?q=america&safe=active&ssui=on Google] and [https://www.bing.com/search?adlt=strict&cvid=4EED8337DDAF4ECFA84A515CF2C45B89&form=QBLH&ghacc=0&ghc=1&ghpl=&ghsh=0&lq=0&pq=america&q=America&qs=n&sc=17-7&sk=&sp=-1 Bing] show the same.

:The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::@CAVincent: "Very far from uncontested"? Not really. And "it comes up time and again" only among a very small number of politically motivated editors who wish to lecture the class about what is acceptable. Also, America(n) has nothing to do with "U.S.-centric" attitudes (as another editor put it). It's simply standard usage for the last 400 years in English, French, and many other languages. Standard usage either endures or it doesn't. That said, placing the term under simple (not complex and verbose) disambiguation rather than forcing an automatic redirect to "United States" seems fair. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mason.Jones, I don't think we are disagreeing, really. By "very far from uncontested", I merely meant that there are perennial complaints (yes, from a small number of editors) and not that these complaints are convincing or are ever likely to get anywhere. CAVincent (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@CAVincent. Sorry for assuming so much. These lectures calling for a ban on 400 years of English usage are kind of spotty. I agree they're unlikely to get anywhere. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mason.Jones Standard usage for the past 400 years?! We're discussing here whether it's appropriate to use "America" and "American" ubiquitously to refer to the United States and things belonging to it. You couldn't be more off base. And it comes up a lot, BTW. Maybe not in your circle, but in the wider world. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I haven't met your "wider world", sorry. If you mean a certain leftist academic milieu, then yes, "American" can get you some trouble; its more stubborn ideologues use everything from "USonian" to "the U.S. people", but most of the English-speaking media don't. I read below that you are trying to rewrite the FAQ on this topic from an "enlightened" point of view. That is not permitted without wider consensus. FAQs were written after long discussion and debate ("American" has been through exactly that in English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia). FAQs can't be "reimagined", out of the blue, by any editor. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Mason.Jones It's unfortunate you're not aware of the wider world—it would behoove you to become acquainted with it so you don't make inappropriate accusations.

::::::You are mistaken. There was no mention of the word "enlightened"—that's your own POV that you've inserted. (It appears you didn't even check my edit before accusing me of wrongdoing.) Furthermore, editing at will, boldly even, is permitted. Encouraged. As to the FAQs, it appears you are confusing them with "facts". Q7 is poorly answered and would never stand if entered into the body of an article. There is no prohibition against editing it, which is why the option is available. If they truly were written after long discussion, please provide a link to the discussions. I did look, but cannot find evidence. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree that "America" is a different animal from "American." I think the term "America" could be disambiguated and not automatically sent to "United States". But the latter term (e.g., "an American actor", "American industry", "un philosophe américain") was confirmed as official, default usage on both English and French Wikipedias through RfCs years ago. And unlike "America", "American" requires no disambiguation. Editors are going to have to accept that as common usage in English (as well as in French), irrespective of any "wider worlds". Mason.Jones (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::@The Corvette ZR1: To be fair, the FAQ does not mention why America is redirected to United States. It only refers to the usage of "America" in the English language. Maybe there should be another question like "Why does America redirect to United States?". AG202 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply|The Corvette ZR1}} I'm from Brazil and when I search for America on Google or Bing the first results are the American continent or things about football (like América Futebol Clube, Copa América). The use of America to refer almost exclusively to the United States is not standard in all languages. In many languages (like French, German or Italian), although the term America can be used to refer to the United States, the word is also used to refer to the continent. Also in English the word America can be used to refer to the continent (basically all English texts before the beginning of the 20th century) and in terms such as (Central, North and South America, Latin America, etc.). Even English dictionaries recognize that the term America does not belong exclusively to the United States [https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/America See]. Redirecting America to this article is basically acknowledging that the US has exclusive ownership of that name and that the 7 continents model is a universal truth. Creating a disambiguation for this term would be more appropriate as it would lead readers to learn that this word has another meaning that is extremely important to know. Mawer10 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Your first argument is irrelevant because of WP:USEENGLISH. Community consensus is that we only consider the English language when discussing article titles. Otherwise everyone could cite to their preferred language's convention and nothing will ever be settled. If you believe that naming convention is wrong, you need to argue that on its talk page and not here.

:::Your other arguments are irrelevant under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a textbook. It is not Wikipedia's job to teach people about things they should know. We already exhaustively cover those alternate views elsewhere under the article on American (word), but it is each user's choice to decide whether to actively explore that issue by navigating to and reading that article. It sounds like your underlying frustration is with the fact that the United States has monopolized the word "American" in common use in English for many years. Unfortunately, as Walt Disney famously said to P. L. Travers at the premiere of Mary Poppins, "Pamela, the ship has sailed". --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Coolcaesar Your first defense is irrelevant. We're all using English here, obviously: both "the United States" and "America" are English words. Native language isn't in question.

::::Your second defense is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a "job", but it is a teaching and learning tool. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? To that end, it strives to be encyclopedic, which means using accurate terminology, not slang and not colloquial speech unless its relevant to the subject. The careless use of "America" among some sectors to refer to the United States might have become commonplace, but that doesn't make it correct. What is your objection to using more accurate terminology? What is your objection to having a disambiguation page to clear up the multiple uses of the term? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The first defense was relevant to your original comment, considering half of your original comment was simply talking about how the word was used in other languages. And even in English, it's the most common usage. No, it's not the only usage, but it's the most common, and is what most English speakers are likely to be looking for when they type "America" in the search bar.

:::::For the second part of your comment:

:::::* There already is a disambiguation page to clear up the multiple uses of the term. It is simply called America (disambiguation) instead of America. This argument is simply about whether we should change the title of that disambiguation page to just "America" or not. People have already pointed out the existence of that page multiple times during this discussion, and yet you do not seem to know this.

:::::* We were never arguing that this definition is the "only" use of the word in English, nor was Wikipedia ever trying to imply that, given that this page "United States" has a note at the top linking directly to the disambiguation page!

:::::* It does not matter if you personally feel that the 2 continents are the "correct" or "most accurate" definition of the word America, if that's not how the majority of English-speaking people use the word. Wikipedia is not here to "right great wrongs". If you disagree with this definition becoming commonplace, take it up with the people who made it commonplace in the first place, not Wikipedia for simply reflecting this commonplace usage. ApexParagon (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::*Fully concur with User:ApexParagon's analysis. Also, the flaw in User:Ghost writer cat's position is revealed by the rhetorical question above, "what purpose does it serve"? Well, I already answered that with the citation to WP:NOT. It's just silly to call WP a "teaching and learning tool". Wrong. It's an encyclopedia, as WP:NOT explains at length. If you disagree with WP:NOT's narrow conception of what is an encyclopedia, then take it to that talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::*:@Coolcaesar Just to be clear, you're saying an encyclopedia is not a learning tool? I suggest you skim through Encyclopedia and reconsider your position. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You are appealing to the general definition of an encyclopedia, which is irrelevant and unpersuasive. The English Wikipedia has deviated from the general definition of "encyclopedia" towards a much more narrow definition under core policies WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Please familiarize yourself with those core policies. Unless you can persuade the WP community that the narrow scope of the project was a mistake and that those policies should be revised, you need to think of ways to argue for your position which are either consistent with or are supported by those policies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@ApexParagon Your response is hostile. ("... and yet you do not seem to know this." "It does not matter if you personally feel that...") This is supposed to be a civil discussion. I don't even recognize what you're saying as relevant to my comment. I think you've mistaken me for someone else. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Native speakers set the definitions and usages of words in any language. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mawer10 It does not matter how the word “America” is used in other languages, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. Here, the way words are used in English takes priority over how they are used in other languages.

:::And we’re not trying to make it seem like the U.S. has “exclusive” ownership of the word America. That’s why America (disambiguation) exists. The reason why it redirects to the U.S. (with a hatnote) is simply because it’s the most common usage of the word in English, and therefore is most likely to be what English-speakers are looking for when they type “America”. See WP:COMMONNAME. ApexParagon (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Any English dictionary will tell you that America has two main meanings: a short name for the United States and the entire landmass of the Western Hemisphere (which can also be considered a continent in other models). Both usages are common in the English language. Before the early 20th century, the usage of the word America was generally exclusive to the continent in the English language. Even today, America in reference to the continent is as widely used in the English language as America in reference to the United States. When an English speaker says "Latin America", "South America", or "Central America", he or she is not referring to the Latin, southern, and central parts of the United States. He or she is referring to the Latin, southern, and central parts of America (or "the Americas" [more common usage in English since the 50s]. Renaming America (disambiguation) to just America or redirecting America to America (disambiguation) won't make life harder for anyone searching the Wikipedia article about the USA. In fact, such a redirect would go a long way toward clearing up the ignorance of many English speakers about the word America. Mawer10 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::You yourself admit English speakers call the continents “the Americas” more often than just “America”.

:::::And we know that “North America” isn’t typically referring to the northern part of the U.S., because that’s what people call the continent the U.S. is in. But people, particularly English speakers, typically think of North America, Central America, and South America as separate continents, rather than a single one. This is why they use the phrase “the Americas” rather than “America” to refer to all of them.

:::::And this is also why when English speakers say the word “America”, not adding any word or anything else before it, they are most commonly referring to the United States. Because people don’t typically think of the Americas as a unified continent. ApexParagon (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::In English, America with an adjective always refers to a part of the continent(s), while without an adjective it usually refers to the USA. Even so, it is the same word. Unless you consider America without an adjective to be a different word from America with an adjective, the case for not directing this word to the article about the USA is quite reasonable. Mawer10 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::*Dictionary.com lists [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/america America] as short for the USA first, followed by North and South America, then also saying that the Americas refers to North and South America combined.

:::::::*The Cambridge Dictionary lists [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/america America] as the USA first, followed by North and South America.

:::::::Also, what is {{tq|America with an adjective}}? Are you referring to American? [https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/American Even] [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/american then], [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/american same] [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/american thing]. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::(Note: most English natives consider Central America to be a part of North America, as our article states) AG202 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@ApexParagon Have you navigated to the disambiguation page? If you have, you'd see there are MANY other uses of the word "America". To say using it for the United States is "the most common usage of the word in English" is completely false. And yes, Wikipedia is English language, but that doesn't mean it ignores how common terms are used in other countries. Just go look at Football. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just because there are other uses of the word does not disprove that it’s the most common use of the word in English.

:::::Other English-language countries call soccer “football”, such as the U.K. But even those other English-language countries frequently refer to the U.S. as “America”. ApexParagon (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Concur with this point as well. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@ApexParagon Sorry, but I'm not following your logic. "Just because there are other uses of the word does not disprove that it’s the most common use of the word in English." Nothing you've written proves that it is. Regarding "football", you made my point. If you go to the article, it's not exclusively about the game played in the U.S. because not everyone uses the word that way. "America" should be treated similarly. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Football is written that way because native English speakers use the word for many different games. Native English speakers overwhelmingly use America (unmodified) to mean the US. So the two articles are treated the same, they both follow usage.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@The Corvette ZR1 It appears you are confusing FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) with "facts". An editor simply typing a response to that question doesn't make it fact. Also, Google and Bing searches return results on the U.S. when the searcher is located in the U.S. or has a history of interest in the U.S., which is why someone in Brazil gets more global results. Thank you for the link to a previous discussion. It was too long to read through, so I wasn't able to determine that the question had been resolved. The length of the discussion, and the fact that it's been brought up again (and apparently is brought up frequently) tells me there is no consensus. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::*{{tq|It appears you are confusing FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) with "facts". An editor simply typing a response to that question doesn't make it fact.}} FAQs are meant to be "facts", in FACT, per WP:TALKFAQ. Especially those that have been thoroughly been discussed and accepted by the community. No one editor can make that change. And it's pretty obvious [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1284683269 you don't accept that].

:::*{{tq|Also, Google and Bing searches return results on the U.S. when the searcher is located in the U.S. or has a history of interest in the U.S., which is why someone in Brazil gets more global results.}} Truth be told, read WP:ENGLISH and WP:UE. Put simply, we don't care if the search results in Brazil or Spain of Afghanistan or Mongolia tell that America refers to the continent. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. That means naming conventions from English, primarily in the USA and UK, are given top priority.

:::*{{tq|The length of the discussion, and the fact that it's been brought up again (and apparently is brought up frequently) tells me there is no consensus.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America_(disambiguation)/Archive_6#Requested_move_10_July_2015 You] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_75#America_is_NOT_U.S. really] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_87#America think] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_90#United_States_redirected_from_%22America%22 that] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_90#%22America%22_redirecting_to_%22United_States%22 way?] (BTW all of them show general consensus to retain America as a redirect to the U.S.A.)

:::The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@The Corvette ZR1

::::* WP:TALKFAQ confirms "FAQ" are Frequently Asked Questions. It does not state that the answers are facts. Facts have to be supported with reliable sources, not opinions. Not even consensus. And yes, editors can change material unless it's been protected beyond their rights.

::::* "English-language" means it's written in English; it does not mean it's U.S.-centric. Wikipedia is accessed globally and as an encyclopedia it must retain a neutral POV. Again, I give you football.

::::* Thanks for the links—I took considerable time going through them and found them enlightening... but not how you had hoped. They only prove how contentious this topic is. Not one of those discussions had a consensus summary. Most simply petered out without obvious consensus. One was closed inappropriately mid discussion. All of the pages had subsequent discussions that were just as divisive, with many commenters giving compelling evidence in opposition to your POV.

::::You can't prove that America "almost always" refers to the United States. Steamrolling the conversation and trying to shut others down by giving your own misinterpretation of policy (e.g. "No one editor can make that change" and "we don't care if the search results in Brazil or Spain of [sic] Afghanistan or Mongolia tell that America refers to the continent") is unproductive. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::First, stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. You have well over 15 comments here in this thread alone.

:::::Second, it's ironic that you call me "unproductive" by "giving [my] own misinterpretation of policy" when I also see you below trying to wikilawyer your own interpretation of WP:NOT, as well as falsely accusing other editors of harassment who are trying to explain common policy. As for you other points:

:::::*You're vastly misinterpreting the purpose of TALKFAQ. The "fact" that I was trying to describe was what the community has decided on. Also we do not need so-called "reliable sources" to form an FAQ, but consensus.

:::::*I am well aware that "English" doesn't mean U.S. centric, hence why I said USA and UK. However, by looking at [https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/page-views-by-country/normal%7Ctable%7Clast-month%7C(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web%7Cmonthly this page], we can see the top 5 countries that view Wikipedia: 3 billion from the United States, 827M from the United Kingdom, 595M from India, 380M from Canada, and 236M from Australia, with the latter 4 stemming from British English, which generally also says America refers to the USA: [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/america] (select the "British" definition) [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/america] (scroll down to the British definition). The reason that football is used instead of soccer is that almost all English speaking countries outside of the USA use football.

:::::*As for the "consensus summary", we did not need any when there was already a clear consensus. If you read the discussions (as you said), you should see that. There were no further move requests, no closure reviews, not even an RfD made, which tells me that nobody had a problem with it.

:::::The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@The Corvette ZR1 Focus on content, not the person. Digging through my history is indicative that you're way too focused on me. Back to content, you have nothing of substance. When challenged, you have to provide sources. I'm challenging the "almost always" statement. It gets cited, or it goes. (Unless, of course, you can provide a WP policy that states FAQs don't have to be factual and verifiable information.) There was no obvious consensus, and since it keeps coming up, what is obvious is that it's contentious and there's lots of disagreement. In cases such as that, there has to be a balanced discussion of the issue. Currently that does not exist because of editors such as yourself who refuse to allow any deviation from your personal POV. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@The Corvette ZR1 For your reading pleasure, from a discussion on WP neutral POV:

::::::English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

::::::Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject for Countering systemic bias has been set up to deal with this problem. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"Cultural bias" is a weird way of saying "how native speakers use the language". If that doesn't match your expectations, it seems to me that the problem is one of mistranslation on your end rather than misusage on our end. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Khajidha If you have an issue with the passage, you'd be better off taking it up with the author of the article. But first I suggest you re-read the passage, because it seems you didn't understand the meaning. It does not link the terms that you implied it did. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Wikipedia articles have many authors, and in high-traffic articles like this one, a given passage may have been the product of or have the support of several editors. -- Beland (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The English-language Wikipedia puts more weight on the usage in countries with more English speakers. How horrifying! Feeglgeef (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but no. The continent is North America. Everyone knows "America" to mean the U.S. BeProper (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is what the World Wide Web says:

:--

:"America" most commonly refers to the United States of America. While geographically, "America" can encompass both North and South America—the entire continent—most people use the term to specifically mean the U.S. in casual conversation. This has been a longstanding convention in international discourse, pop culture, and everyday language.

:--

:I think this is what most people on the planet say, too. Who doesn't call the U.S. "America"? When talking about the other countries, too, they say "Americas" or North and South America. This is in no way offensive to other nations whatsoever. BeProper (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::"What the World Wide Web says", meaning what exactly? Those terrible AI overviews? A specific source? A reliable one? Feeglgeef (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

There should be a section in the etymology section noting when America became more prominent than the United States in the text. --Plumber (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:What are you trying to assert with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1282208383 this copy and pasting of quotes]? Are you saying that Teddy's the reason for the usage of the term? Moxy🍁 00:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::On a side note pls review WP:OQ.... As we are simply looking for more effort when adding content. Moxy🍁 01:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just a note that Ghost Writer's Cat is attempting to edit the FAQ to reflect his POV without discussing it properly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/FAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1284683269] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Duly noted, and the editor has been notified. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for catching that. It looks like Ghost Writer's Cat's real issue is with the narrow scope of WP as prescribed by core policies like WP:NOT. The place to criticize that is on that talk page, not here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@Coolcaesar WP:NOT does not apply. This is the Talk page for the subject. So let's discuss. Where is the documentation for the response for the answer to Q7? Please prove support for the statement that America "almost always" refers to the U.S. Please quantitatively define "almost always". Meanwhile, also note the other comments that do not agree with your POV. There are enough in just this small subset to undermine your POV. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::WP:NOT applies everywhere on this project, as does WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Under those policies, English Wikipedia's purpose has become quite narrow in comparison to the conventional definition of "encyclopedia", so appealing to a broader definition will get you absolutely nowhere. If you don't like those core policies, then you're working on the wrong project. If you don't understand what is a WP policy, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You will not succeed in changing anyone's minds unless it is clear that you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the evidence already discussed at length in the prior discussions in this issue and all WP core policies, and you show that you can either bring new evidence or a new perspective to the table. I have neither the time nor the inclination to research those old discussions when under WP:ONUS, the burden of proof is on the editor who seeks to disrupt the community consensus. It's your burden to skim through those old discussions, and all the evidence that was discussed therein. Then you come back and say, hey, I've thoroughly reviewed so-and-so discussions about this issue (and you should link to all the ones you read) and I understand what was discussed before, but here's something new that was completely missed at the time and which I think changes the analysis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Coolcaesar "WP:NOT does not apply" means "There is nothing within WP:NOT that my edits violate." Who are you to define what Wikipedia's purpose has become? It's evident that you are the one who needs to visit WP:NOT... "An encyclopedia" is not "a broader definition"—it IS the definition, right there in the first sentence, and always has been. Happy to hear you have no more time for this; I don't need any more lectures from you, so I expect that will be the last. Any more reprimands and I will consider it harassment. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In case it's not obvious, I'm trying to help you here. I keep pointing you in the direction of what you need to do if you wish to successfully persuade others of the righteousness of your position. You need to properly frame your position in terms of existing WP policies and guidelines, or, in the alternative, if those policies and guidelines are contrary to your position, then you need to confront that and then articulate why those policies and guidelines are wrong to begin with.
• :::::::Instead of taking that advice to heart and stepping back to take a deep breath and adjust your strategy, you made an unwarranted accusation of harassment. Please review Wikipedia:Civility.
• :::::::Getting back to the point. You responded to my citation to WP:USEENGLISH as if you read that naming convention as a directive to use English on the English Wikipedia, but that's not what it says. It starts off with: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)." I should have used the more precise link to WP:ESTABLISHED (a statement in the middle of WP:USEENGLISH), which states that "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources".
• :::::::Going back to your other argument. You keep asserting that Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia". You correctly pointed out that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not acknowledges that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But after that first line, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not repeatedly carves away at the general definition of "encyclopedia", one broad exclusion after another. By defining Wikipedia in the negative, in terms of what it is not, what is actually left is very narrow and deviates greatly from the general definition of an encyclopedia.
• :::::::In your posts above, you criticized the "careless use of 'America' among some sectors to refer to the United States" and you claim to be arguing for "accurate terminology".
• :::::::Let's do some close reading and take apart what you mean by that. When you criticize the dominant usage in American English of using "America" to refer to the United States as "careless" and you claim that using "America" in a way that doesn't necessarily mean the United States is more "accurate", you're attempting to justify using Wikipedia as a soapbox to teach speakers of American English to use the word "America" in a way that is less arrogant and less offensive to speakers of other languages. (Keep in mind that most native American English speakers see nothing wrong with the current dominant usage and find it quite accurate, since they learned it as children from patriotic songs like America the Beautiful and God Bless America.)
• :::::::Under WP:NOT, it is entirely inappropriate to use Wikipedia for such purposes. See WP:NOTADVOCACY: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing." WP:NOT also says that Wikipedia is not a textbook. See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: "the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter."
• :::::::As WP:NOTLEAD points out, WP always follows, it never leads. Wikipedia merely describes the world as it is and not as we may want it to be.
• :::::::So you're probably right, it's time to end the conversation for now. You have not persuaded anyone. You have not altered the community consensus. You have revealed that you think Wikipedia should be used as something which it is most definitely not. For the time being, the consensus stands. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Jessintime Personal attacks aren't allowed. How is "often" any more or less of a POV than "almost always"? Obviously "almost always" is your POV. Please remove your comment above. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Jessintime BTW, there is no rule that we must discuss before editing. However, there is strong recommendation that you discuss with the editor either before or after reverting. As long as you were naming me, you should have tagged me. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Readers who type in America are overwhelmingly looking for the country not the continent. It serves them best to land on this page rather than to land on a disambiguation page. For the few readers looking for the continent, there is a convenient link at the top of the page they can follow. TFD (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::@The Four Deuces Despite the repeated claims about users "almost always" and "overwhelmingly" searching for the United States and not another use of "America", not a single person has been able to substantiate the claim. Considering this, and the repeated statements to the contrary, the dogmatic persist. The statement violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would assume that readers are more or less looking for the meaning of a word in proportion to the usage of that meaning. We can gauge that by looking at a recent corpus and examining how often the various meanings of the word are used. We can also use search engines that adjust their results based on user feedback to see which meaning people are most often searching for. I just did a search on scholar.google.com; the only use of the singular "America" on the first page of results is to refer to the United States. A search on google.com shows an overwhelming use of the singular "America" to refer to the United States, including in a lot of news articles. The first web result is the Wikipedia article United States, the second result is a page about America (band), and the third result is the Wikipedia article Americas. Further down after pages about the US and the band is a page about the Bank of America. So if anything, it seems readers would be looking for the band if they are not looking for the country, not the continent. -- Beland (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Beland Google search results are notoriously skewed. If you are located within the U.S., it knows that and automatically returns relevant content. Somewhere in the discussion is someone from Brazil who does not get the U.S. when he searches on "America". And yes, Wikipedia is going to return "United States" because "America" redirects there. Basically, no one has been able to prove definitively any of the claims made on this topic related to "usually", "most often", "almost always", etc. After just getting a royal a$$ kicking for even daring to ASK why non-English sources are allowed, charged with being "disrespectful", I find the defense here for this U.S.-centric discussion absurd. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I mean, yes, Google skews its results toward results people in a given geography click on, and people won't click on pages about the continent if they are looking for information about the country. That's why I thought it was a useful check. When we consider English usage, it is useful to weight it according to the size of the audience of English speakers in different countries. [https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/page-views-by-country/normal|table|last-month|(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web|monthly] says in March 2024, the United States generated 3 billion page views, UK 827 million...the first Romance language-speaking country is Brazil in 7th place with only 130 million. That's not negligible, so it might make sense to accommodate those people in some way, but I can't find any evidence that English-speaking people in Brazil predominantly use "America" to refer to the continent when they are speaking English.

:::::If I repeat the search on google.com.br, I don't get a web result for the continent on the first page at all.

:::::If I repeat the search on duckduckgo.com, which does not personalize results, the meaning of America as the country dominates the results in a similar way.

:::::If I repeat the search on bbc.com, the first page is dominated by Club América, followed by the country, with no references to the continent.

:::::If I repeat the search on the site of [https://search.folha.uol.com.br the largest São Paulo paper], "America" is rarely used in comparison to "Latin America", "South America", etc. One result says "markets fell in Europe and America", and I think it means the United States because it comes not long after the quoted phrase "Make America Wealthy Again".

:::::[https://www.riotimesonline.com/?s=america A search on the Rio Times] shows "America" used to mean the United States in three different articles, and never used to mean the continent in the first page of results.

:::::Is there anywhere else you would want to check before we conclude that the country is the most common meaning for "America" for English speakers in Brazil and the United States? -- Beland (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Beland It's still YOU, as a native English speaker, with all your English search history and English language preferences, all associated with your IP address, that determines your search results. So no, I don't take your results as the definitive conclusion. Search results prove nothing. There is no way to prove the claims made here, at least not within our capacity. Why are you all so adverse to toning down your extreme stance? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you think it will make a difference, you could try using private browsing mode and VPN into a Brazilian IP address, but you would need to specify an English-language preference if you are looking for English-language and English Wikipedia results. However, even if you throw out all the results from general search engines, we still have the result that Brazilian newspapers do not use "America" to refer to the Americas when writing in English.

:::::::{{reply|Mawer10}} I assume when you are doing your search on "America", Google and Bing are giving you results in Portuguese, not English? I see the Portuguese Wikipedia redirects "America" to a disambiguation page, which seems appropriate for that language. Different languages attach different primary and secondary meanings to the same strings, so I don't see why the language-specific Wikipedias shouldn't follow usage specific to the language they are written in. -- Beland (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We are writing in English. So the meaning of words in English is what matters. And the meaning of any word in any language is set by native speakers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Everyone I know uses America to refer to the United States of America. They say, "the Americas", "North America", or "South America" in reference to the continent. I think it would be confusing to redirect English speakers to a disambiguation page. 2600:1007:B002:6F08:4070:E62D:E59D:F64C (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Like many other people have said, the English Wikipedia should be tailored for English speakers. So, there is nothing wrong with an English search history, or English language preferences. I am bilingual and search in Spanish and in English and my search results suggest that America is used to refer to The United States of America.

:::::::Also check out these dictionaries (American and British dictionaries) whose first definition of America is "The United States of America":

:::::::www.wordreference.com/definition/America

:::::::www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=America

:::::::dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/america?q=America

:::::::www.dictionary.com/browse/America (in this dictionary both the first American and first British definition The United States) 2600:1007:B002:6F08:4070:E62D:E59D:F64C (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Recent areas of focus and active participation.

An unsourced claim has been restored that it was due to the shock of Lincoln's assassination that the Reconstruction amendments passed both houses of Congress and were ratified. This is interesting given that the 13th amendment had passed both the House and Senate prior to Lincoln's assassination, and the book-length source that was cited by an expert on the subject (Foner) does not accord any specific importance to Lincoln's assassination. (There is no mention of it in the pages cited at all.) Perhaps, {{ping|Shoreranger}} could find a popular history source attributing the amendments to a cult of personality effect, rather than considering them the consequence of the North winning the war after four long years and hundreds of thousands dead following the failed attempt at secession over the issue of slavery? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would also note that two of the three links now cited for the opening lines of this section are broken and that two of them lead to primary sources. (The other archived link leads to a very brief summary of the three amendments.) Unfortunately, the one substantive secondary source that I had added was moved down in such a way that the pagination cited is now incorrect. (the large sections point to the discussion of the individual amendments, it is in the preface that there is mention of African-American participation in post-confederate politics. WEB Dubois' book Black Reconstruction in America would probably be a stronger reference for this) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I just followed WP:SOFIXIT. If there are complaints, feel free to list them below. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Mason.Jones}}, I didn't notice at the time that I thanked you for adding the reference for one part of your addition that at the same time as you removed the CN tag you added a new unsourced bit of wikitext in this edit. Could you find a source for your claim, please? Thank you. Also, I'll mention that while I know that some people are allergic to this "future in the past" use of would, considering it overly florid when a simple past would obviously suffice, it doesn't particularly bother me, as long as the claim is sourced. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Sashi -- I thought I was restoring the established wording I had seen there for ages, but before I understood your posts/edits describing this "military occupation" as pretty limited (and, to younger historians, exaggerated). You removed it, and that's fine with me. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the following sentence that appears in the Sports section:

:"However, baseball has been regarded as the U.S. "national sport" since the late 19th century."

This sentence makes it seem like baseball is the sole national sport in the United States. However, American Football is (currently) regarded as the U.S. national sport as much or more so as baseball is. I propose that the wording of the sentence in question be changed to:

:"It, along with baseball, have been regarded as "national sports" in the U.S. since at least the mid-20th century."

Thank you.

AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is no officially designated "national sport" in the US. Baseball has the established nickname of "the national pastime". I would say citation needed to your statement that "American Football is (currently) regarded as the U.S. national sport as much or more so as baseball is" as I am unaware of any such statement being applied to football. Admittedly, football is probably the most watched sport in the country. But is that what the term "national sport" means? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:The current wording is fine in context given that the previous sentence explains how football is more popular. If anything I would change the description of baseball from national sport to national pastime. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)