Talk:North America/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Sockpuppetry on this article and talkpage 2 Trinidad 3 Plains talking 4 Denali, highest on earth? 5 Continent or not 6 Middle America 7 Mexico 8 Table and list 9 Northern America 10 Talk about... 11 Central Americans are not North Americans! 12 Anglo-America / Latin America 13 Etymology 14 Aruba 15 Clarify locations 16 Usage 17 Seriously? 18 "Human Geography" Goal in the Article 19 List of Countries and Territories Proposal 20 Citations to prove Mexico is not often included in Central America 21 Table Options 22 Caribbean nations 23 Some observations 24 Dominica and St-Lucia 25 Politically "North American" 26 Human Geography - demographics 27 Tectonic elements photograph missing 28 North and South America are two continents 28.1 Usage of 'North America' 28.1.1 North America != USA + Canada 29 What Happened to the Old Tables? 30 Continent 31 Request for Comment: Continent 32 Definition of Continent 33 North America fork 33.1 Again ... 33.2 Delete review of North America (region) 34 Resources 35 Norteamérica -- subcontinente? 36 Repeated usage reversion 37 Extent 38 Geography of North America 39 vandalism? 40 Improvements 41 Maps excluding Greenland 42 Hawaii 43 Clipperton Island 44 Other names

Sockpuppetry on this article and talkpage

Hello, please note that users User:Cogito ergo sumo, User:Ex post factoid, anonimous users under IPs 142.150.134.XX and User:E Pluribus Anthony are the same person as you can note here on the suspected sock puppet page, also here [1] and [2]. Now, we can really start a civilized discussion on how to handle this article. AlexCovarrubias 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

More evidence about User:E Pluribus Anthony long history of abusive sockpuppetry to give the "impression of conscensus" (User:Lucky Mustard and User:A the 0th) can be read here [3] AlexCovarrubias 07:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Trinidad

I am not sure if Trinidad belongs to south America. It seems as if belongs to South America... How about some feedback?

I am taking Trinidad out and adding it to South America... http://www.visittnt.com/

I have readded it to North America. For one thing, it never got added to South America after all. For another, it is grouped in North America in every source I have consulted. I said it on the South America talk page, and I say it here--find me an actual recent reference that lists Trinidad and Tobago as part of South America, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, we have the existing references versus your "It seems..." Alfvaen 05:06, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Remember: things don't always fit nicely into little neat perfect boxes. There's usually some exceptions to the rule. Now, if you're going to bend the truth and claim that the Caribbean plate is part of the North American plate you end up with more issues that must be bent. Trinidad and Tobago (as a unitary state) are both on the Caribbean plate and the South American Plate. Trinidad is a chunk of land which broke off from Venezuela and still sits on the South American continent. Trinidad lies ~7-8 Miles off Venezuela's northeast coast. Tobago is only about 22 Miles northeast of Trinidad clearly in what would be considered the Caribbean Sea or the Caribbean Plate Cuba or there-abouts is pretty much the actual end of the North American Plate. CaribDigita 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Plains talking

The Great Plains region should not be called the "Central Lowlands." Those lands are relatively flat, but they are *not* low-lying. Elevation in the Great Plains slowly rises from east to west, from about 1,000 feet to more than 5,000 feet when they run into the Rockies. (For metric folk, that's 300-1,500 meters.)

Denali, highest on earth?

Right now the article says "The highest peak is Denali in Alaska (which can be considered the tallest in the world if measured from the base to the summit, as distinct from sea level to summit)." Where did they get that from? Reference please? "Rise above base" is not a well-defined concept mathematically, so one could pick any mountain they like for this distinction. Topographic prominence, on the other hand, is well-defined, and the mountain with the greatest topographic prominence on earth is Everest. This claim should be made more specific or removed entirely.

Denali (A.K.A. Mount McKinley) is the highest peak in North America, although whether or not it's the highest base-to-peak is something I can't speak to. That said, measured sealevel to summit, Mt. Everest is indisputably the highest mountain on earth, and measured base-to-summit, as opposed to sealevel to summit, Mauna Kea is indisputedly the tallest mountain in the world, something that is clarified in the articles on both those mountains themselves. Edit accordingly. Tomer ^TALK 07:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Continent or not

On more than one occasion, anons have edited the article to indicate that North America is something other than a continent. As far as I know, it's a continent. Add comments here if you feel the urge to change the article with respect to this issue. Maybe that way we can avoid mini revert wars and find some common ground. --Yath 9 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

I have no idea so I think it would be good for people to source their claims either way, as we should only use sourced material, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Plate tectonics considers North America to be mostly one plate, separate from that of South America. Perhaps the definition of Shield (geography) would help clarify what is a continent. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC))

I piled up rocks between the continents. I emphasized the separate tectonic plates and the Caribbean Plate in between. The two paragraphs in the intro could be adjusted to emphasize the cultural ties as well as the physical uniqueness. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 04:33 (UTC))

North America is not a continent on its own. Its a subcontinent, as are the subcontinents of Central America and South America. I was told that the US educational system teaches that N.A. and S.A. are different continents, something that I find to be either highly insulting or comical. I believe that show a somewhat xenophobic, perjudice-laden view that you can divide the continent on its "richer" and "poorer" parts, instead of taking it as a whole. America is a single continent (continent, mind you, not a nation), with three (and not two) parts, North, Center and South. Every nation in Latin America and outside the sphere of influence of the US or UK considers as such. There is ONE olympic ring in the Olympic Flag to represent the ONE continent that is America. For other such considerations, please refer to the first paragraph of America.~~LtDoc~~

And geography (and also geopolitics) tell us that a continent is a contiguous land mass with similiar characteristics, features and possibly culturally linked people. Also, your comment is inherently wrong as it implies that diferent cratons would mean that nations on these cratons would be in different continents as well (Such as the Canadian Shield, the North American craton, the Wyoming craton, etc...)LtDoc 02:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At least two of those are the same. North American craton: "While much of the stable craton is exposed at the surface north of Indiana as the Canadian Shield…" (SEWilco 20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC))

So your saying California should be another continent.LtDoc 23:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it is too young and unstable to be a continent. Western California is on the Pacific plate, and 80 million years ago was ocean seafloor. In a couple hundred million years it may become an island, but unpredictable volcanic activity can affect the surface appearance. (SEWilco 19:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

Using your own logic then, it would be improper to say that "South and North America are different continents", since the isthmus of Panama is also "too young and unstable", in a geological time frame.LtDoc 13:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• There are two continents in the Western Hemisphere, not one, or three.

North America is the northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland.

Geology teaches that the two continents have separate cratons. When North America was part of Laurasia and South America was part of Gondwana were they a single continent? Central America is on a separate tectonic plate also. (SEWilco 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC))*There is only one continent in the Western Hemisphere, not two, or three.

America is the single continent to be completely situated in the W.H., with parts of Africa and Europe as the other significant landmasses. Also, be brave enough to sign your posts.LtDoc 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

�¶?tral America a part of NA== Maybe because there is a road link between North America and South America people think CA is a part of NA, SqueakBox 03:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Central America is between the two continents, and happens to be a convenient place to build a road than Cuba. Central America is more of an area than a continent; we'll have to wait millions of years to see whether the tectonic plate it is on will grow. (SEWilco 04:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC))

Continents are more historic artifacts than geologically defined entities, and correspond only roughly to tectonic plates. North America is generally defined as containing Central America, as the old (and now restored) version of the article indicates. --Yath 06:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Most, however, tend to see Central America as a region of North America, considering it too small to be a continent on its own."

Who-is "most"? CaribDigita 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Shrug. That's the kind of low-quality sentence that I think shouldn't be in the article. --Yath 00:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Central America is a region of southern North America extending from the southern border of Mexico to the northern border of Colombia. It separates the Caribbean Sea from the Pacific Ocean and is linked to South America by the Isthmus of Panama. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.217.222 (talk • contribs) .

This article is misleading. It's already got people citing the "British West Indies" as a part of "British North America". CaribDigita 16:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know: unsourced edits that insinuate a point of view are frustrating. I've recently made edits (namely to the 'Geography' section) based on authoritative citations – e.g., Oxford and Webster's dictionaries, The Columbia Gazetteer of the World Online. Throughout, Central America is noted as a region of North America: I see no authortitative citations above to the contrary.

If other edits are made that are inconsistent with these or unaccompanied by source information, they will be dealt with accordingly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a widespread problem across a number of articles on Wikipedia - Latin Americans insist that the Americas are a single continent, rather than the two they're considered in english, and that only Americans think otherwise. I'm not sure there's any real resolution to it, though my preference is to standardly use the anglophone english definitions and merely note contraversy in the articles, your milage may vary. In any event, its fairly clear that "North America" in standard english usage starts either at the Panama canal or the Panama-Columbia border and extends north, Central America being part of North America (any typically including Mexico). While some points may not be widely agreed upon (Trinidad & Tobago, North America or South America?), the real contraversy is the widespread English-Spanish rivalry on Wikipedia (for an example, see the lists of languages.) WilyD 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A look at basic plate tectonics pretty clearly shows that north and south america are really only coincidentally joined at Panama. Seems like good reason to see it as being its own continent. 66.75.250.175 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that there are two major definitions for North America, one that consider it a continent and one that consider it a subcontinent. Based on this and in Wikipedia policy of including all the POV, I think we should add a note in this article and start a new one about !North America (subcontinent)" or create a disambiguation page. AlexCovarrubias 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear -- I do not see an abundance of (actually, any) sources indicating that either North America or Central America are subcontinents. Numerous reputable sources (like Encyclopaedia Britannica and a clutch of dictionaries) indicate that North America is a continent and Central America a region of it; alternatively, sources may indicate that America is a single continent. Plates do not generally demarcate continents -- e.g., Siberia on North American Plate -- but their coastlines, continental shelves, and regional conventions do (e.g., Eurasia = Europe/Asia, one or two American continents). Similarly, forking articles is no way to treat similar concepts but is a perfect way to confuse an issue -- add verifiable content to existing articles instead (e.g., North America, Americas, Americas (terminology)). Cogito ergo sumo 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Come again! It is real surprising this discussion. The following are the continents we know: Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania and America. First time I listen somebody saying that North America is a continent. Maybe they wanted it but it is in fact a sub-continent, so much as India is a subcontinent, South America is subcontinent... Until geologians do not say other thing, there is only one continent in the West: America and it is divided in North, Central and South. Other things out of it are suppositions. If we do that, so Greenland can be considered a continent and Europe and Asia, in fact a block, an unique continent... El Viajero Paisa
  • You're mistaking the word Continente for Continent - an easy mistake to make, but these discussions should clear that up. Even dictionaries give there being seven continents as part of the definition. Africa, Antartica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, South America. It's just what the word continent means. WilyD 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Middle America

The article says: "In the United States, the term Middle America is sometimes used to refer to Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean collectively." I am removing it.

At least within the United States, "Middle America" is not used to refer to the continent, but part of the country. Maurreen 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just remove the US blurb/clause: it is used to dually describe those three areas in the Americas (more germane for this article) but also the Midwest US; popular dictionaries, e.g., will indicate both. Perhaps even add the US notation to it; however, Middle America (disambiguation) covers this (though can be tweaked). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the reference about Middle America was removed?, I'm not liying, the CIA has just Mexico as the only country in Middle America and uses the "North America" map as reference. JC 20:48, 25 January 2007 (PST)

I agree with Maurreen, Middle America is pretty much always been used to describe the middle class in the United States, and also “Middle America” which includes a lot countries, is only mention when it comes to Mexico, and basically only in the CIA worldfact, how convenient is that...? so that part has to be removed.Supaman89 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This original discussion -- now resolved -- is 1.5 years old. Please. The CIA likely describes the country as such -- not the only source -- because: (a) it is correctly in that region, (b) it is more precise (alternatively, it's in southern North America), (c) no other countries occupy such an ambiguous position in North America, on the isthmus adjoining North and South America. That's that. Corticopia 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

Also, the article says Mexicans object to "North America" being reserved for the United States and Canada. But don't Mexicans refer to people of the United States as "norte americanos"? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) Maurreen 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it was added to highlight traditional Mexican concerns about being 'lumped' in with other countries of Central America, e.g., a la inclusion in NAFTA. While I don't disagree with the notion per se and note that there are certain sociopolitical distinctions, the statement is apparently unsourced anyway. Based on that, I wouldn't lose sleep if it were massaged or nixed appropriately. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

When Mexicans are striving for accuracy, they refer to the residents of the United States as "Estadounidenses", not as "Norte Americanos."

Right, the word "Estadounidense" is used by Mexicans and other Latin Americans when refering to Americans, literally meaning "United Stater" or "United Staten". LOL, that sounds really wierd in english. AlexCovarrubias 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexico IS North America NOT Central America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Mexicans know Mexico is a country in North America, and consider themselves as North Americans. Neither Centralamericans nor Mexicans consider Mexico as part of Central America for social and political reasons, e.g. Central American countries separated from Mexico when Mexico declared Independence and years later, Mexico never took part in an effort to build a Central American society of nations. Both, Centralamericans and Southamericans refers to Mexicans as "Norteamericanos" (Northamericans). I have noticed that most or at least a big part of Americans and Canadians consider Mexico as a part of North America, specially since the implementation of the NAFTA, when speaking about economics or North America as a region. But the term is still widely considered to mean "USA and Canada only" socially speaking. Have you guys noticed how Mexico is considered part of North America in search engines directories like Yahoo and Google? AlexCovarrubias 10:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes and No. People in Central America and South America DO KNOW that Mexico geographically is located in North America (There are no other choices, nobody would say that they belong to Central America, much less then to South America). But NO, Mexicans would never be referred to "Norteamericanos". Very similar when someone hears the expression "americano", although knowing all inhabitants of the continent are "americanos" very seldomly it would be understood that way, and common usage would dictate that it would be understood as "americano" a citizen of the US. 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Table and list

Pending a groundswell of opposition, I've been bold and nixed the redundant list of territories which was essentially duplicated in the table below; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories in the table but might later. Of course, the article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency. Perhaps the list should be preserved in an article entitled Geography of North America (as is the case with some of the other continents/regions, and which I'm surprised doesn't exist yet) or the like? Anyhow, there you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO

Northern America

In fixing up catogorization, which is my personal interest, I came across Northern America. Is this what Wikipedians call POV forking? WP:Point? I think Northern America should be merged and redirected to this article. --Categorizer 07:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As indicated and linked in the article – per the UN geoscheme – Northern America is a subregion of North America. Various atlases and compendiums do so as well, particularly when categorising entities for statistical purposes (e.g., partially utilised in Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year). The concepts are distinct: i.e., Northern America is not the same as North America, just as South Africa (republic) is dissimilar from Southern Africa (subregion). And in your efforts to categorise content, it is ironic that you insinuate a UN 'POV' when it arguably doesn't get more impartial than that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The UN is not impartial. And it certainly isn't "neutral". You can't say that the United Nations "does not have a point of view". It's nothing else but POV on every issue of global importance: human rights, genocide, "Zionism is racism", you name it. --Wing Nut 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Mexico listed under Northern America when the Northern America article says specifically that Mexico is not included. Also, the Central America article notes that Mexico is usually not included as well, so where does that leave Mexico if it isn't Central or Northern? I think the best solution would be to not use "Northern America" at all, and use the confusing, redundent, yet common phrase "North America*"... *not refering to the continent.--Andrew c 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Either of two reasons:

1. A desire to place the United States last on the list, by manipulating the names of regions to exploit the "fair" use of alphabetization to make the US hard to find.
2. Simply an oversight. --Wing Nut 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody replied so I renamed the section on Territories and regions to U.N. subregions. It's amazing that this list puts the United States last, even though it has most of the people and 1/3 of the area. Is someone trying to "de-emphasize" America's importance? --Wing Nut 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No it's just in alphabetical order. --Yath 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should not use this particular subdivision. First because it is confusing, the term "Northern America" is not widely used and the UN makes clear that it is used only for statistical convinience. We should only list the countries in alphabetical order. AlexCovarrubias 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about...

Any info in this article about the use of the term as if it meant exclusively Canada and the United States?? Georgia guy 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes: in the 'Human geography' section, namely the 3rd paragraph. Other related terms are also treated in that sxn. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Central Americans are not North Americans!

We are own people and we are not Northerners. We are seperate from them and are nothing like them! You can try to correct me, but the people who say that we are North Americans are White folk who try to keep us down (and sometimes other ignorant groups of people). I will never surrender to being North American and nor should any other Central American should ever buy into this. I don't care what the White man tells us. They're not us. We should be able to decide for ourselves who we are and no else should tell us who to be. This is just another way of bringing us down. I am proud of being Central American and being someone who inhabited this land long before the White people made contact with us. If we have been living here for the longest time, should it not be us who decides who we want to be?

-Tito A. Martĩnez

This is a lovely essay, but unfortunately you cannot undeclare yourself a north american any more easily than you can underclare yourself an earthling. Central America happens to be located in North America, so Central Americans are North Americans - it's a geographical thing, not a cultural thing. Perhaps you're thinking of Latin America and Anglo America? WilyD 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Tito can "undeclare himself". If you'll check the Spanish Wikipedia articles on Central America and North America, you will see that Spanish language defines North America's southern-most country as Mexico.

es:Norteamérica redirects to es:América del Norte, which lists the lists the following political units in north to south order:

• Greenland
• Canada
• United States
• Mexico

Note that Central America is not on this list!

WilyD is also right, as far as English language goes. "North America" includes Mexico and Central America.

I think America (terminology) should provide a better explanation than it currently does. A section on English vs. Spanish terminology would help. (I don't speak Spanish, but I studied French in high school and can sometimes puzzle out the meaning. Maybe I'll recruit some bilingual Wikipedians to help me write this. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'll claim the fatal flaw here is this: América del Norte is a spanish term that is different from the english term North America. Tito may not be a norteamericano - (although I don't think he declares himself here either - doesn't spanish have an equivilent to L'academie?) - but he's still north american. WilyD 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think "North American" is an identity that applies to Latin Americans. His country (if it's in Central America) is a part of the North American continent, but the cultural division is what he's concerned about. Want to help me update America (terminology)? --Uncle Ed 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think America (terminology) reflects correct english usage. Maybe Use of the word American is a better place to move these kind of complaints (although I'm actively involved in that article, and know it'll get shot down as original research). Roughly speaking, there aren't political continents - Wikipedia has articles on Anglo America (not that I'm convinced the term exists) in contrast to Latin America which is probly what he's talking about, though he was further want to segregate the Central American and South American parts of Latin America - I'm not sure. WilyD 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Except perhaps for Europe "continent" is a geographic concept. It's not meant to imply any cultural unity. There's a lot of cultural diversity in Africa and South America for instance, but no one would dispute their designations as continents. Most atlases I've seen define "North America" as including Central America, the Caribbean and Greenland. I guess because South America has such a nice roundish complete shape that it looks most aesthetically pleasing to define SA as a countinent and NA as "everything in the Americas that's not South America."Inkan1969 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this is so. Yet the term "North America" refers not only to the size and shape of a land mass. It also has political and cultural connotations.

In American English, "North America" includes Central America and the Caribbean.

In Spanish, the closest translation to "North America" is América del Norte or Norteamérica is limited to Mexico, U.S., Canada & Greenland.

It seems continent definitions can be political, cultural, or purely "geographical". Is such a term as "geopolitical"? --Uncle Ed 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-America / Latin America

The current definition seems to exclude the Francophone Caribbean - we metnion "Anglo-America" which is the US, Canada, and the Anglophone Caribbean; and "Latin America" which is the Spanish and Portuguese speaking areas. Francophone areas seem to be explicitly excluded, except a brief mention of Quebec. john k 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "Latin" refers to Romance languages, including French. Maurreen 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but Latin America does not include Quebec for instance. It's just the way the term is used. WilyD 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I figure it's based on countries. Maurreen 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's the case. I understand it to be a cultural thing, making the name Latin America possibly a slight misnomer. WilyD 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a "Latin America" definition from a dictionary: "That part of the Western Hemisphere south of the U.S., in Mexico, Central America, the Wet Indies & South America, where Spanish, Portugese & French are the official languages." Maurreen 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right - to be honest, I don't really buy the Anglo America & Latin America articles - with respect to North America, in common usage I believe Latin America covers all of North America less Canada, the States, Greenland, Bermuda, St. Pierre et Miqqy, and possibly Jamaica. So your dicdef sounds about right. WilyD 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Latin America" means different things to different people/places. In the United States they say everything to the South is Latin America. Though, in the english speaking Caribbean, they don't regard themselves as being in Latin America and use the term to refer to all other independent areas of Central America or South America. France has likewise changed their relationship between the main part of the country and their Caribbean territories. I haven't studied the politics of Martinique, Guadeloupe, or Saint-Barthelemy in a while but part of the change had to do with calling them "Departments". The French Government also did something along the lines of placing one of the ministries of their central government in the Caribbean islands effectively placing the French Government in the Caribbean as well. That might be part of the reason it was removed. France and their "Departments" is more like the relationship Hawaii and Alaska have with the "lower 48". France has effectively made those islands a part of their country. The Netherlands are doing a similar exercise in their territories right now as well, they've basically asked them to vote on becoming more integrated into that country's central government or else becoming more autonomous like Aruba. CaribDigita 00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The article now says: "A number of theories exist regarding the naming of North and South America. The most widely recognized is that they are named after Amerigo Vespucci, who was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not the East Indies, but a New World, previously undiscovered by Europeans. The second and less generally accepted is that the continents are named after an English merchant named Richard Amerike from Bristol, who is believed to have financed John Cabot's voyage of discovery from England to Newfoundland in 1497. A third and minutely explored belief that has been advanced is that America was named for a Spanish sailor bearing the ancient Visigothic name of 'Amairick'."

I think it should say: "North and South America are widely accepted as having been named after Amerigo Vespucci, who was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not the East Indies, but a new world, previously undiscovered by Europeans. But other theories exist. [4] Maurreen 17:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason? As it stands, the article is not particularly long ... WilyD 17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the length. My main reason is that the current text seems to me to not make clear how predominantly the Vespucci belief is held. The other option is to give more information.

So, maybe instead: "North and South America are widely accepted as having been named after Amerigo Vespucci, who was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not the East Indies, but a new world, previously undiscovered by Europeans.

"The second and less generally accepted theory is that the continents are named after an English merchant named Richard Amerike from Bristol, who is believed to have financed John Cabot's voyage of discovery from England to Newfoundland in 1497. A minutely explored belief that has been advanced is that America was named for a Spanish sailor bearing the ancient Visigothic name of 'Amairick'. Another is that the word is rooted in an American Indian language." [5] Maurreen 18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have no problem with stronger wording towards the popularity of the Vespucci origin, but I'd rather not see the others (especially Amerike) dropped. WilyD 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a discussion of other names in the present usage for North America be appropriate to include in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyorndoff (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aruba

I wonder if Aruba shouldn't be included in the North America section? Of course geographically it is very close to South America (where it is currently listed), but socio-culturally it fits in much more with the Caribbean countries/territories listed in this section.

My dictionary says it is Caribbean, so sure, as far as I know. Maurreen 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Caribbean does not equal North American. For example the following islands are both Caribbean and South American: Alinor 12:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Aruba

Curaçao

Bonaire

Trinidad and Tobago

See also Talk:South America#Territorial divisions. Alinor 12:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

At the very least provide a citation for something contraversial. The Caribbean is North America - by all usual accounts - if you add a citation, it can't be reverted, otherwise it's a target for reversion the same way moving Yemen into Africa is a target for reversion. The Europe page mentions that both Armenia and Cyprus are sometimes considered European despite not being in Europe - but they're members of the council of europe and such, so that's easily cited. For example, you could use this page [6] where the Trini government attempts to sneakily claim it's in South America - anyways, I'm going to look to substantiate false claims all morning. But Latin Americans often have spanish ideas about geography that attempt to push into the english geography, I'm sure you can find it. WilyD 15:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "For example, you could use this page where the Trini government attempts to sneakily claim it's in South America"

Comment: Not the best of examples actually Trinidad is only ~ 15km. off of South America and it sits *on* the South American continental shelf. On the most clear of days when you stand on the shore of "Boca del Dragon" (Dragon's Mouth) or "Boca de la Sierpe" (Serpent's Mouth) you can actually see the coast Venezuela across the Gulf of Paria. Trinidad itself also was a piece/chunk of Venezuela which broke off from the continent [7]. In addition being on the same plate, amy small earthquake tremors hitting Venezuela are often felt in Trinidad. Trinidadians will also often caution visitors against daring to camp in the country-side of Trinidad because quite a few of those large South American snakes survived the journey after Trinidad broke away. Tobago on the other hand which is ~ 23 km. north east of Trinidad is not on the South American plate it lies on the Central America - Caribbean plate. Aruba I would think would be like the Greenland situation. It's in N. America but its defense and foreign affairs all lie within (Amsterdam) the E.U. CaribDigita 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's likely still fine, since a lot of atlases prefer to draw continent lines along national borders - I'm sure I could dig up a swarth of atlases that show Trinidad as North American. For example, this map from the government of Canada shows Trinidad as North American [8]. WilyD 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Caribbean is North America" - this is too general and can not be true - the north caribbean is North America, the south Caribbean - South America - this is clear - you can not have a small rock off the coast of Venezuela and claim that it is in N.America ONLY because it is in the Sea (Caribbean Sea). Anyway, it is hard to find links about "Aruba is North American", "Bonaire is North American", etc. So, I think that the fact that these islands lie on the South American continental shelf, are on the "south-side" of the deepest path of the Caribbean, etc. are clear indication that they are South American. Also - just look at the pictures of their location. We don't speak about Jamaica here... Alinor 06:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Caribbean is North America is general, but can easily be true. Nebraska is North America is general but true, if it's easier to visualise. They're part of the (supposed official-like) UN subregion - and all the UN subregions are set in a single continent. Anyways, what makes sense isn't important. What's true is what's important. WilyD 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Only this issue "All UN subregions are set in a single continent" - I don't think that it is true. The UN subregions are more a based on political feature - state borders. For example the non-controversial Russia - Russia is in Eastern Europe UN region, both its European and Asian parts. Alinor 08:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarify locations

Have these to-do items been taken care of, to everyone's satisfaction?

1. Fix reference to Mexico:
   • Is Mexico part of Northern America, in the UN classification scheme?
   • Wikipedia's article on Northern America defines it as "the region of the Americas, namely of the North American continent, north of Mexico."
   • This would seem to exclude Mexico, yet is placed in the table under "Northern America".
2. Clarify "location of Central America".

I've done my best to be clear and neutral about these points, even going out the Spanish Wikipedia for some perspective (with the help of Babelfish). Is it okay now?

1. In the current version of the table Mexico is in Central America, as per this image: [9] and as per your explanation from the Wikipedia's article on Northern America. So, I think point 1 is OK.

2. What do you mean by "location of Central America"? Alinor 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's indisputable that Mexico is not in Northern America - I believe it keeps being moved by Mexicans who read it as North America because they believe North America and Central America is not part of North America (but on this point, in an english language Wikipedia, they're wrong). Similarly, while whether Mexico is part of Central America (Subcontinent) is debateable (and I'm not sure a concensus exists), it is part of the UN subregion again. WilyD 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the name of all these "Free Trade Agreements" that keep confusing everybody. All of a sudden since the Dominican Republic is in CAFTA, now it's being considered as "Central American" even though it is in the smack dabb-middle of the Caribbean. Mexico only started being called "North America" in a big way after NAFTA ("North America Free Trade Agreement") was formed. Before NAFTA Mexico was considered "One of them", with them being more culturally in line with Cental America than the so-called "lower-48" and Canada. Mexico was even largely left-out of the North American Numbering Plan system. Only certain parts made it into late 90's inclusion. The only reason the Caribbean got in it was because the British West Indies had all Canadian and US made equipment and was eventually supposed to become a dominion and later a Province of Canada. CaribDigita 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean that for Americans, Mexico was not socially and culturally tied to North America. I have an American friend who is 53 years old and he says that he was taught in school that Mexico was part of North America (geographycally). Mexico has always been considered as a North American country in Geography, but since the implementation of the NAFTA or even a decade before, Americans citizens started including it in the term North America somehow to clarify the growing economic ties. But still, culturally speaking, a large number of Americans consider North America as "US and Canada only". It is very important to notice that neither Mexicans nor Centralamericans consider Mexico as a part of Central America. Both, Central and South Americans refers to Mexicans as North Americans, when speaking about regions of Latin America. AlexCovarrubias 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is strange. I myself confess to a "feeling" that "North American" means US & Canada. Greenland feels somehow "European" to me, if I bother thinking about it at all. I mean, how many people live there anyway?

The Spanish tapes I listen to caution American language learners that norteamericano is used to distinguish between Mexicans (who would say no es norteamericano) and Americans who are. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this at all - I think the minimal North America is the subregion Northern America - but that the three low population members aren't usually thought of much. The problem really is that there are two North Americas, one that's opposite South America, but one that's opposite Latin America. WilyD 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It depends what "North America" is opposite to.

1. The opposite of Latin America and the Carribean is Northern America (without Mexico)
2. Or perhaps the "mainland opposite" of Latin America is Northern America
3. In Spanish, the remainder of the Americas, after subtracting South America and Central America, is North America (with Mexico)

I guess the words people use don't fit neatly with category schemes we'd like to create. --Uncle Ed 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I think really fails here though is the identification of norteamericano with north america, rather than, say, northern america. The Americas have two real divides - the geographic divide, which seperates South America from North America, and the cultural divide, which seperates Latin America from North America - the overloading of the term becomes a subtle issue, most of the time neglected, and I think the latter divide is somewhat less formal. The wikipedia article Anglo-America (a term I've never heard outside of Wikipedia) provides a nice alternative, except that it musses around too much on language, trying to exclude Quebec from Anglo-America, et cetera. WilyD 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the "opposites of North America" argument. Latin America is never the opposite of North America. North America is not a cultural concept, it is a geographic concept that includes Canada, the US and Mexico. If anything, the opposite of Latin America would be Anglo-Saxon America or Anlgo-America. I believe that saying that Mexico as part of Central America (when both Central Americans and South Americans consider Mexico to be part of North America) is a culturally-prejudiced or even racist classification from (exclusively) Anglo/White Americans (after all, 40 million Hispanics live in the United States, and they have a cultural affinity with Mexico). Given that the US is a multicultural country (and it is proud to be a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural melting pot), the "cultural" divide to separate Mexico from the US and Canada makes no sense at all. Moreover, both Canada and Mexico are quite multicultural (in spite of the American stereotype of the Mexican "Mestizo" or "Indian". How surprised would you be to find Venetian, German, Mennonite, Lebanese, Korean, Chinese and even Polish communities in Mexico). IF at all, the distinction between North-Latin America is economical (developed vs. developing) but not cultural; and with the implementation of NAFTA, this distinction is becoming anachronistic. If the UN uses Northern America as the opposite of Latin America, why extrapolate this concept to North America? Oh, and for the North American Numbering Plan System, Mexico was not included for political reasons not geographic reasons, what's that got to do with geography?

Well, if you want to call the United Nations racist, be my guest. They are the ones who place Mexico in Central America - not me.

And I agree: the opposite of Latin America is "Northern America" (not the E-R-N in the first word here) or maybe Anglo-America, especially when we are speaking of cultural groupings instead of land masses.

Spanish speakers divide the American mainland into three parts:

1. North America (Canada, US, Mexico)
2. Central America (excluding Mexico)
3. South America

American English divides the mainland into only two parts:

1. North America (Canada, US, Mexico + Central America)
2. South America

We need to describe these divisions neutrally, and I invite any suggestions on how to do so. --Uncle Ed 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• North America is definitely used to mean the oppositeof Latin America - this usage may be racist, implausbile, poorly thought out - whatever, but it is done. Anglo-America isn't used conversationally, nor is Northern America. English (not just American English, which I don't speak, for example) uses the division Ed Poor describes. Mexico is Central American, Mexico is North American, Mexico is not North American - this is all standard english usage. What is should be doesn't interest me, nor does it interest Wikipedia. Only what it is. WilyD 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well WilyD, I will also use your argument. The subdivision of North America into Northern America and Central America is not used conversationally or even economically (example, the NAFTA and the recently signed North American Prosperity and Security Partnership). So I think we should not divide the continent North America in only two parts because Mexico is not part of Central America from a social, economic, political and historical point of view. We should only order the list of countries alphabetically or use the term North America again and make a clarification. Also this UN subdivision (make for statistical reasons) creates problems with another countries in the caribean.

AlexCovarrubias 06:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage

If "North America" is standard usage, where did "Northern America" come from? Is it a neologism? Is it politically correct UN-speak? --Uncle Ed 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the name the UN choose for the subregion. I'm not aware of any history beyond that. And while it's standard usage to overload "North America" in the States and Canada, the usage of "North America" for just "Northern America" is far less formal, and would be contraversial with Central Americans - view the comments from Mexicans on this page, for example. WilyD 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think there's anything "politically correct" about it, but rather that the UN's goal was to divide the world up economically. The U.S. and Canada are much more economically similar to each other than the rest of North America, and thus were placed into one of the UN's regions. They had to invent a term for it, and voila. --Yath 18:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously?

[10] this edit is seriously a point of contention? WilyD 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Human Geography" Goal in the Article

I am very confused about the goal of the subarticle "Human Geography". It is very obvious that the current redaction is orientated to make emphasis in the fact that Mexico is a country of Central America, which according to the most extended usage in the US, Canada and Central America, is not. Is this a POV issue?

The term "Norther America" is not widely used by most of the people of North America (continent). This term is mainly used for statistical reasons, so I think that we should not make emphasis in the subdivision of the region according to the UN because:

1. The UN makes clear that this particular subdivision is only for statistical convinience 2. It missguides people to believe that Mexico is part of Central America which is not 3. It creates general confussion 4. It tries to divide the continent from an economic point of view only

I believe that we can still use the economical statistics provided by the UN but not the subdivision which is what creates confusion and a probable POV issue. We should list the countries statistics alphabetically or if some Americans are so concerned about it, by GDP.

We also should rewrite the subarticle to really mention the human geography of the continent. AlexCovarrubias 06:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the subarticle "Human Geography" based in language, a very light mention of society and culture, economics and demographics. I also ungrouped the table of countries and ordered it alphabetically to avoid controversy and confussion. Finally I added a very neutral description of usage of the term, including what people from Canada and the US usually think, what internationally is believed and a reference that in some countries North America is not a continent but a subdivision. AlexCovarrubias 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite looks fine. I'm fairly sure the reason it was divied up as such was an apparent belief in a large number of geography articles that the UN scheme is the closest we can get to unbiased, and since it's well sourced, is still reasonable within WP:NPOV. Most usage of Central America includes Mexico ... the UN scheme is not surprising. But given the the problems this causes with Mexicans, Costa Ricans, whoever, better to drop it than constantly revert it when the labelling didn't really serve a purpose anyhow. WilyD 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No Wily, you're wrong. Common usage of the term "Central America" does NOT often include Mexico. Some users use a lot the Encilopaedia Britannica to make a point, well let's see what it says about Central America (Link):

It extends from the southern border of Mexico to the northwestern border of Colombia and from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. It includes Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Then, as a side note or as a secondary note, they also say that: Some geographers also include five states of Mexico.

It is clear that commonly Mexico is not listed as a Central American country. The use of the UN geoscheme is not the best, in my opinion, because, as I repeteadly said, it is only used by the UN for statistical convinience, mainly to divide the world in developed and developing countries. That is not neutral, but a geopolitical POV. We should regroup (is there is the need) according to the most common usage and point out, as I did in one of my reverted editions, that the term North America is also a subregion of the Americas, not only the name of a contient. AlexCovarrubias 10:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I supported the change. Doesn't change that Mexico is commonly considered Central American. WilyD 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as the various viewpoints are cited and sourced -- which they were -- this should not be a POV issue. In effect, recent editions have substituted one viewpoint (the prevalence of which is dubious) with another -- that's problematic. Thus, I have restored the prior table; I see little reason to forego organising territories using this scheme just because few believe it to be (likely erroneously) partial. In addition, the other continents are organised using this scheme. I will also peruse, and restore if necessary, other content to see if anything was nixed in error or oversight. 65.92.173.6 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not just a "few" of us who believe this particular subdivision doesn't serve a purpose. It is confusing and it is not neutral, that is why the UN clearly states that this division was intended only for 'statistical convinience'. And c'mon, it is very clear that this subdivision is being used as, what it looks to me, an excluding reason to leave Canada and the US "alone". The term "Northern America" is confusing and it is not helping at all. The term is not in common usage even among Canadians and Americans. According to the fair use of Wikipedia, the best thing to do until we can settle this down, is to list the countries alphabetically.AlexCovarrubias 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Define "few": again, a dubious claim. The term is used by the UN -- and I wholly disagree with the contention that it's not neutral (precisely because it is used for statistical purposes) -- and various atlases (e.g., Canadian Oxford World Atlas). And, if online usage is any indication, more than a million online instances of Northern America hardly makes it uncommon. As for why, just as with the other continental tables in Wikipedia, I perceive the UN scheme was inaugurated merely to aid in organising territories neutrally (given, as this is an element of human geography, varying and apparent POVs) and placing territories (more or less) physiographically: listing a littany of more than 30 territories without some sort of structure is cumbersome for users. Regarding possible confusion, this is as much an issue as it is with (for example) South Africa or Southern Africa, both of which fairly common -- that's what the articles are intended to clarify. Moreover, I gather this has more to do with your grumblings about why Mexico is categorised with the countries of Central America (and, by extension, with Middle America), which is correct in a number of verifiable contexts despite your protestations. Until it can be demonstrated that this truly is a POV issue or the scheme is somehow incorrect ... I believe this is already 'settled'. 142.150.134.55 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See my argument below about common use of "Central America", even in the Enciclopaedia Britannica. The UN geoscheme used in this listing is not based in a neutral POV but in an economical one. This geoscheme tries to divide the world into developed and developing areas, for statistical convinience. It is not neutral. AlexCovarrubias 10:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say this is "settled" because there is no conclusion about it. Of course this has to do with my protestation about Mexico being listed as Central American, because almost every person in the world knows Mexico is in North America (not the continent, but the most common subdivision). This is the only case creating confusion under this particular UN subdivision (maybe also Panama). The current subdivision was created only for statistical convinience, meaning to 'present UN informs from an economic point of view' and economics is not the only subject in Human Geography. You do not see Mexico listed as Central American in almost every encyclopedia, but as North American.

• Central Americans do not consider Mexico as part of Central America
• Mexicans do consider Mexico as a part of North America
• Canadians and US consider Mexico as North America

Even from an economic and political point of view, Mexico is more North America than Central America. So, why should we confuse people listing Mexico in Central America? I do not see the need to "group" the countries in the list. The only goal in doing such a thing is that: to divide or somehow "isolate" the two richest countries in North America.

Yes this is Human Geography subsection, and if some users feel there is a need to group the countries, we should do it in a way that do not confuse people! The thing is that the term North America can mean both, the continent and a subregion of the Americas, both in english and spanish. It is clarified already in the Usage of the term. It is clarified also that for some Canadians and Americans, the term often is taken to mean US and Canada only.

But commonly if you ask an American or Canadian where Mexico is located Norh or Central America they will answer North. Ask the same to a Central or South America and you will get the same answer. Ask it to an European and the same answer. It is obvious that they are not using the term to mean continent but subdivision of the Americas.

So I suggest we use the most common usage of the term internationally, because Wikipedia says we should not write articles only to meet certain Country teachings.AlexCovarrubias 04:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with many of your points. First of all, not only does the UN categorise Mexico in Central America (and if you simply look on a map, it occupies an intermediary position in the Americas -- see Middle America) but the southeastern segment is physiographically part of that region. Moreover, Fowler's Modern English Usage also notes the inclusion of Mexico in Central America.

This article is about the continent of North America, which almost all sources indicate extends to Panama (of course including Mexico). Most common English publications indicate this, and concurrence of it being used to refer to just the US and Canada (i.e., as a region) is already accounted for in the article.

So, how is the current scheme confusing? Within the table for North America are three regions ... it just so happens that one of the regions -- Northern America (i.e., the northernmost portion of the Americas) -- is similar. It would be incorrect to consider this synoymous with Anglo-America because the former also includes Greenland, St. P & M, and Bermuda. Mexico is in North America, but not in Northern America -- there's nothing earth-shattering, complex, incorrect, or biased about this and I see little reason to forego it which, apparently, as endured for months.

As for opining about who would say what, I choose not to qualify that: please provide reputable citations to corroborate your assertions, which you haven't done in promulgating your point of view. Ditto for economic comparisons.

Until then or unless compelled otherwise, I suggest -- if anything -- to add a note to the section indicating the scheme and rationale (as with the other tables), but to otherwise leave it alone. 142.150.134.52 05:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we cannot reach an agreement, the best neutral way to list the countries is in alphabetical order until we can decide what to do.AlexCovarrubias 06:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But commonly if you ask an American or Canadian where Mexico is located Norh or Central America they will answer North. This is almost certainly false. Mexico is located in Central America, which necessitates it being located in North America. The question you propose makes as much sense as Where is San Francisco? California or the United States? - the answer is Both WilyD 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with you. I have plenty of American friends and they know Mexico is located in North America. I personally am aware of a conservative-excluding education in the US where they teach Mexico is in Central America. Wierd that Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans do not consider Mexico Central American. Most of the world educational systems put Mexico in North America, not the continent, but the subregion of the Americas. Wikipedia notes that we should make the article neutral and not to meet certain country criteria. I provided a link to the Enciclopaedia Britannica article about Central America, they say Mexico is not commonly included but that "some geographers also include 5 states of southestern Mexico". Link here AlexCovarrubias 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- your argument is based largely on a faulty assumption: that North America is a subregion. Even the UN scheme notes that it is a continent (which includes the three constituent subregions) and I've yet to see a publication (nor has one been presented) that doesn't support this. And you speak of educational systems that teach what you assert -- unsourced opining. The Britannica notation you've provided merely corroborates other content already in the article. Anyhow, various sources do indicate that all of Mexico is in Central America -- e.g., map entitled "Central America and the Caribbean", Collins Discovery World Atlas, p. 136-7.

Moreover, note that the UN has categorised countries not only based on economic factors but geographic ones. What is inherently POV about Northern America, or Central America, for that matter? On their face, both terms are neutral and imply direction (see Americas (terminology)) -- it is (your) interpretations and removal of coted information that is cause for concern. You also speak of developed and developing countries implying bias. This is BS and, if anything, you are the one who has made an issue of it: good luck trying to push this with those articles.

Through your edits, you have certainly not made this and other articles neutral and have actually removed verifiable content that doesn't agree with your perspective. As well, your 'friends' do not count: please cite and source your assertions, which you haven't really done, and don't replace what at least is verifiable in favour of unsourced, possibly original assertions, and text of lesser quality. Until then or unless compelled, I will restore the prior table and restore information that you have removed without an iota of consensus. 142.150.134.53 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point doesn't address the issue at hand at all. Sure, Mexico is in North America - that doesn't stop it from being in Central America - Costa Rica is in Central America, but that doesn't stop it from being in North America (which is also is). They're not competing regions. WilyD 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly guys, I'm not trying to do anything here but to write an accurate article that does not talks only about a certain educational teachings and it is not biased. Saying that Mexico is in Central America is missguiding because the US teaching model is not the most extended. Take for instance European, Latin American and even Asian models where they subdivide the Americas in North, Central and South, including Mexico in North America.

I know this is about North America as a continent. However, in the past editions of the article there has been certain tendency of strongly mark Mexico as a Central America nation. Recently this anonimous user 142.150.134.53 and 142.150.134.52 (which I assume is the same person) included again a statement in the Human Geography section, in the first paragraph by the way, to "clarify" (or exclude) Mexico. I think is it not appropiate to do such thing because it has nothing to do with the section and with the topic "Human Geography".

However, what you say is a POV even if you cite the sources. It is a particular conservative and kind of racist POV. Again, this is not the most extended and common teaching around the world. Wikipedia in English is not only about US english. As you may know english is now a kind of universal language, everyone in the planet use it, so this article does not have to meet certain country or countries criteria. It is also stated in a Wikipedia rule.

I think the best thing we should do is to make a disambiguation page to clarify the term "North America", one for continent and one for subregion. Even if you guys do not like it, Mexico is in North America, continent and subregion, just not in the UN geoscheme. Why there is a NAFTA and a CAFTA? Why Mexico is in the NAFTA? Why Canada, US and Mexico signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? Because even geopolitically Mexico is more North American than Central American.

So, please, let's try to write this article neutrally. I do not want this to turn into a editing war or something. Thanks a lot! AlexCovarrubias 04:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that there really isn't any evidence Mexico is in the North America region, only the contient. Whether this is racist, I have no idea (nor do I particularly care, Wikipedia should reflect things as they are, not as we wish they were. If the North America region isn't used as a phrase to include Mexico, we shouldn't include it here.) You may like to say "NAFTA", but that doesn't add anything to the discussion - there's no reason to assume it doesn't refer to the continent. Don't try to acribe it to American english either - the geography the Americans use is the same as the geography the Canadians, Australians and British use. Whether definitions should go by usage by anglophones or merely those who speak english is however, debatable. WilyD 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You may like to say "NAFTA", but that doesn't add anything to the discussion - there's no reason to assume it doesn't refer to the continent. Actually there is, the US signed another agreement with the Central American nations called the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The term "North America" in NAFTA does not refers to the continent.AlexCovarrubias 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WilyD I see your point, but there is evidence to prove the term "North America" is also used as a region. Maybe I have failed to bring it and show it here, I promise I will do it. I started to do so. First, I want to prove that Mexico is "not often included in Central America" and you said. Please take a look at the new section I created in this discussion. Secondly, I will bring definitions from another sources to prove that under some educational systems, North America is used as a subregion of the Americas, including Mexico. Honestly I'm kinda surprised you have never heard about it, specially because I read the whole discussion and some users noted that before. AlexCovarrubias 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know North America is sometimes used as a region but there isn't really any evidence that say, NAFTA refers to that (fairly vague) concept. The region of North America isn't well defined at all (except that it always includes Canada and America) - beyond that, depends on the speaker, occasion, whatever. I don't see any reason to believe that NAFTA is in contrast to CAFTA even though they have similar names as the names are excessively generic. Maybe it'd be worthwhile to split off North America (region) and admit Uh, we're not really sure where this place is. 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality???, this is so offensive, I´m a Mexican and I´m a Northamerican there is no discuss here, less than of the 15% of the Mexican territory is in Centralamerica, more than 85% is in Northamerica see Mexico. This is racist, for this article, the other languages, Mexico is included in Northamerica; it wont matter if you like to make Mexico a Centralamerican country, the fact is you like it or not, that we are Northamericans or simply Americans as well. Jcmenal 20:16, 11 September 2006 (PST)

I agree, highly offensive to Central Americans too. Anyone in CA knows Mexico is not a part of Central America, seems like US ignorance dominating yet again. El Rojo 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is dispuiting that Mexicans are North Americans - everyone knows this to be true. 100% of Mexico's territory is in North America, just as 100% of Nicaragua's territory is in North America - the real problem here is that apparently Latin Americans use a different geography than what Wikipedia terms Anglo-Americans (although conversationally I've only ever heard Latin American contrasted with North America) and the attempts to translate the geography are apparently imprecise. WilyD 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to make clear is that the UN geoscheme is missguiding and confusing, because usage of the term "Central America" does not often includes Mexico. That is why I object using this particular subdivision along with the fact that it was not created based in a geographical nor physiographical terms, but economical ones only. Why do I say this? Because geographically most of the definitions of "Central America" does not includes Mexico (as I proved below), and physiographically, according with some geographers, most of Mexico (87.89%) is in North America. So still why to list Mexico as Central America? Because it was more statistical convinient for the UN to do it, just that! They have a chapter dedicated to Latin America, I guess they didn't want the subdivision to be "Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America". For statistical convinience they included Mexico in Central America instead of leaving it alone. This is because they use the term "North America" to mean a continent.AlexCovarrubias 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While I obviously do not dispute the citations presented, they present only one side of the argument and (in fact) are meant to support a somewhat obscure point of view. Your argument is based on the premise that the UN scheme is the only source that delineates the continent in this manner. It is not: harking of WilyD's comments, numerous atlases and both Fowler's Modern English Usage and The Oxford Companion to the English Language indicate the inclusion of Mexico (at least in common English usage) in Central America. Again, insinuations that the UN scheme is somewhat misguided or partial are bollocks -- it merely reflects an equitable, impartial split based on human and physical geography. Far from it: while Mexico is sometimes grouped with its northern neighbours, I suspect that it was grouped with the other countries of CA by the UN given that it has more in common with its southern neighbours (language, history, socioeconomics). Otherwise, it would not be commonly included with other countries of Latin America too ... or would you like to debate this now and the UN's delineation of that, which generally agrees with others?

In summary, any ambiguity regarding usage of North America -- continent, 'region', or whatever -- should be added to that section. The table, harking of others in other articles, should remain as is. I do not believe a new article should be created, which would truly confuse the issue.

Also, I will say, that the current article is largely structured to my satisfaction. But please remember that anything that has to do with countries and borders (including such subregions) is an element of political -- i.e., human -- geography, so said moves of content seem rather petty, actually. Anyhow ...

Lastly, I'm unsure why anonymous editors can no longer edit this page -- I edit sporadically and have no intention of registering -- but it seems that it was in response to vandalism. If that is what admins etc were notified of to put the block in place, this seems more a measure to silence opposition and is more indicative of the instigator of what has turned out to be a verbose debate. 216.13.88.86 23:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not supporting an "obscure" point of view. As you can read, indisputably the term Central America is not often applied to Mexico. You say that Mexico was listed in Central America by the UN because of also "physical geography" reasons. Wrong. According to some geographers, Central America would extend from Mexico's Gulf of Tehuantepec. This means that, Mexico is less than 15% in the physiographical region of Central America. Now, historically and socioeconomically Mexico has never been part of Central America. May be you should read some more about the history of Mexico and Central America. Mexico is more economically tied to North America (subregion) than to Central America. Historically and geopolitically Mexico has also never been considered Central America. AlexCovarrubias 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your 'obscure' viewpoint is that of 'North America' as a subregion. For every citation that you provide to possibly support this (not yet), I can provide far more to counteract them -- it is a continent that includes Mexico/Central America. I will also add some citations shortly to corroborate assertions of Mexico being in Central America or its corollary, Middle America. Also, your comments are contradictory: some geographers consider a portion of it to be part of Central America, yet you consider it to not be a part of it historically etc. So, I suppose the fact that it shares a common language with its southern neighbours is something to be ignored? And please do not insinuate arguments of economic integration when you invoke them as reasons to exclude a scheme that is far more reliable than your rhetoric and proposal. 142.150.134.53 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read better. My comments are not contradictory. I have divided my opinions based on different subjects:

* Historically Mexico has never been nor is considered Central American. Reason: When New Spain gained independence, the Central American provinces rejected to be part of the new propoused Republic (Mexico). They prefered to be independent. This created an enemisty between Mexico and the Central American provinces. After some years, those provinces tried to create a union and invited Mexico to take part. Only the province of Chiapas decided to join, but the Mexican Government convinced the province not to do it by offering it more autonomy whitin the new Federal pact. Finally the C.A. provinces became Nations and created a unique culture and identitiy: the Central American.

* Geographically, as I proved with some citations, Mexico is not often considered Central American. Reason: There are two physical definitions of Central America, one that tells it begins by the Mexico/Guatemala border (not exactly) and the other tells it begins at the Itsmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Even under the second definition, most of Mexico (87.89%) is in North America. Also geologically, almost 100% of Mexico is in the North American Plate. See this image of the Tectonic Plates.

* Politically, Mexico is not considered Central American. Reason: Mostly because of the same historical reasons. It is important to note that Mexico has always played a role of pro-US and pro-Latin America most of the XX century. But, specially begining in the 70's more pro-US. This is why Mexico has "lost" some influence in Latin American, since most of the countries have a tendency of being Anti-US. However, this political reasons are not important for the article. I'm just adding it to show that under different subjects, Mexico is not Central American.

Those 5 states are only 12.11% of Mexico

Almost 100% of Mexico rests in the North American Plate

It is very clear to me that you want to explicitly note that Mexico is Central American which is not. The current table pleases you and that is why you want to keep it. The only thing I want to do is create a more neutral one. Saying that Mexico is Central American when most of the usage of the term in the world says it is not, it's very biased, politically conservative biased.

You like to use the UN geoscheme because it uses the term "Northern America" and you were the one that wrote that "geopolitically the term is often used to refer to the US, Canada, etc." So, after all it is a geopolitical term, huh? Interesting. We should write this article based in geography not in politics or geopolitics. AlexCovarrubias 07:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh also you should make an image search in both Yahoo and Google for the term "North America" and you will see that almost all the images shows North America as a contient or North America as a region only with Canada, US and Mexico. Cya! AlexCovarrubias 07:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Having done this, this doesn't seem to be the case. After the continent, there's just as many Canada+America as there is Canada, America and Mexico+maybe Bermuda which are barely more common than America + the lower quarter of Canada and top eighth of Mexico. In general, I will admit my impression that the North America region excludes Mexico comes a lot from Roger Tory Peterson, but there are a whole pile of references floating around that put Mexico in Central America (or maybe it's in neither? Who knows?) - the issue is unclear as to the prevalence of usage, and none of us should claim we know unless we have some data (data is not the plural of anecdote). Until then, we're solely arguing a style point (to which I don't have the answer - each format seems pretty equally desirable. WilyD 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the inclusion of Mexico in Central American is usual, unusual or anywhere else in usage, and neither does anyone else here. We know it happens sometimes (we've seen some refernces) and not always (again, we have references). Any categorisation scheme will be inherently POV at some level - I'm not sure there's a way we can do elsewise - citable is always preferable, right? WilyD 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, due my city location, I´m more Northamerican than some U.S. citizens living in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, half of Texas and Lousiana, parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the whole state of Florida. Jcmenal 20:50, 11 September 2006 (PST)

A few points:

• This entire argument is predicated on the simple notion that the current table and content thereof is partial. BS: various notes and content provide various points of view. If anything, said instigator seeks to steer content to reflect a solitary perspective (as did AC's prior edits to the table): that Mexico is in North America (region). There is no dispute that it is part of the continent nor that many sources indicate it (wholly, partially, or not) in Central America; however, other sources (atlases, Fowler's regarding English) usage also indicate an alternate point of view that AC seeks to suppress. I can also source numerous instances of North America being used to refer to the US and Canada together (i.e., without Mexico) and notions of Middle America -- I wonder how that would rub respected Wikipedians? in addition, membership in international organisations (e.g., NAFTA), is by no means an authoritative gauge of whether something should belong in this article about a far broader topic (e.g., countries not in Eastern Africa/Southern Africa members of Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa); moreover, google test should be treated with scepticism.

• As for the scope of the article: consult the detailed article for North America in Britannica, for example, and you will note extensive treatment of both human and physical geography. Wp should be no different. And as for the table, since we are delineating states -- geopolitical constructs -- in it, it is foolish to avoid treatment of these equally valid notions of geography.

• Lastly, AC should bite his tongue; I've read throughly, thank you. Relatedly, if you insinuate again that what I am promulgating is a racist perspective, as you did beforehand (which is far more offensive than anything I have noted -- much of which is at least citable), I will end this discussion with YOU unequivocally and without further comment. Capiche? Cya! 65.95.237.248 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first you should register, anonimous IP addresses does not help a lot in recognizing who is writing an opinion... Second, I am not trying to "suppress" any point of view, that is not my goal. Actually it was the previous version of the article that suppressed the notation that Mexico is not often considered Central America although the UN includes it in its definition of the region. Third, even geopolitically Mexico is not considered Central America, again, you and the people saying this is not "true" should read more about Mexico and Central America history and politics. Fourth, when you try to include what you know about an article with good intentions, providing sources and citations, and the people just don't want to pay attention and keep reverting the article and even including more sentences to strenght their point of view, well, you surely can suspect of a bad attitude.

Yes, states are geopolitical constructions, but in this case you are only trying to list Mexico in Central America purely based in your geopolitical point of view. See, in Latin American geopolitics, even in European geopolitics, Mexico is not part of Central America. Geographically Latin America, Europe and some asian nations list Mexico in North America (region). Geologically, almost 100% of Mexico rests in the North American Plate.

So... Mexico is only going to be considered Central America... because of one geopolitical point of view and because according to some geographers, physically 12.11% is in the Central American region? Oh... and because of a certain educational systems (or systems that however are not the majority) that teach this way? Mmmh...

However as I already said, I'm not trying to suppress the point of view that some consider Mexico as Central America.

Writing or presenting the article in a way that seems that the teaching that Mexico is Central American is more correct is certainly not accurate. Why? Because the most extended use of Central America does not includes Mexico. What about not to group Mexico in Central America and then add a note that some consider Mexico as CA? Oh, no, you want it listed in Central America and then add a note that says "Mexico is not frequently not reckoned in Central America". Again, why? The most extended use of "Central America" does not includes Mexico. I think that Latin America (549 Millions), Europe (710 Millions, well substract the UK population), let's say half of Asia (1,901 Millions) speak well about the most extended usage than only the US-Canada-UK teaching (as far as I know). AlexCovarrubias 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, there are lots of sources that treat Mexico as Central American, not just the UN. There's certainly no reason to believe the idea that Mexico isn't Central American is prevalent (especially if we reject attempts to translate non-English into English as problematic on essentially semantic issues like this. It's also equally possible that Mexico doesn't belong in either Central America or North America (region), that it just exists in North America (continent) without being in any of the subregions. Of course, I have to suggest is Mexicans at large really had any problem with being identified as Central Americans the UN would've choosen a different region name, like Equatorial America or whatever - they had no problem inventing Northern America WilyD 18:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to tell that Mexico was listed in Central America under the UN geoscheme for statistical convinience only. That sentence "statistical convinience" I got it from the UN geoscheme, I need to find the link again, it was a link from this discussion I think.

I can use the same argument you used, that is no reason to believe the idea that Mexico is Central America is pevalent, specially when you and the other multiple IP guy have not listed any of the numerous definitions that you say exist. AlexCovarrubias 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What I've specifically said on multiple occasions is that none of us have the foggiest idea of how prevalent either use is - the article is currently organised along a fairly authoritative scheme - which is a reasonable (if seemingly pointless) choice. OR and guesses about commonness of usage do not make for a good scheme. WilyD 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just went to Japanese Wikipedia and they teach that 北アメリカ (North America) as a Continent and as a subregion. In the article you can see the japanese writing 北アメリカ used again to list Canada, USA and Mexico. North America in Japanese Wikipedia. AlexCovarrubias 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is funny! I just found a US website about Butterflies and is titled "Butterflies and Moths of North America" operated by the Montana University. Guess what? It includes species found only in the US and Mexico... I find it odd it does not includes Canada. However... are you gonna say they mean continent by North America? Cause every time I cite a source for North America meaning Canada, US and Mexico you say "there's no evidence it means region instead of continent". :P AlexCovarrubias 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can really get away with arguing that the term North America isn't overloaded. It's really only your claims that Mexico is in North America (region) and Mexico is rarely or never included in Central America that remain unverifiable. As for butterflies and moths, they can't survive on glaciers (hence the exclusion of Canada) ;) Seriously it's not that simple, because you can use the continent as a descriptor without using it just as a "region", i.e. European Union. But if my sister's not around you still my collectively refer to me and my parents as the Shannon family even though we're not all there - it's perfectly grammatically permissable to use the name of the whole to refer to a collection of the parts. WilyD 19:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG Wily, I found your sentence "It's really only your claims that Mexico is in North America (region) and Mexico is rarely or never included in Central America that remain unverifiable. very offensive! I have proved with citations (verifiable sources) that at least the second part is true! Mexico is not often included in Central America! In some cases (example, within Latin America) is never included, it is also true! I also brought a link from the Japanese Wikipedia. I found your sentence both offensive and frustrating cause I have really invested my time in trying to prove you guys are not completely right. =( I have never said Mexico is never included in CA. All I'm trying to do is not to list Mexico in Central America just because the UN does, but to leave ungrouped US, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, Greenland and St Pierre not to cause confussion. This only makes me feel like whatever I bring or prove, you guys are not gonna accept it just because you feel like it. A very frustrated AlexCovarrubias 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of odd, since the second part is actually more secure. Your citations are just anecdotes - the plural of anecdote is not data. We really have no idea how often Mexico is included in Central American (except that it's not always, and it's not never). Whether Mexico is rarely, occasionally, sometimes, often or usually included in Central America isn't addressed by any of your citations (as far as I can see). As for not grouping the countries, I'm really not aware of any rational for grouping them by UN subregion rather than leaving them all ungrouped (an option I actually prefer - since there's no rational for using UN subregions). I know it's frustrating when you can't find the right citation for something, but sometimes it just doesn't exist. It may be annoying at times that Wikipedia prizes verifiability above truth, but them is the beans. Sometimes, they're tough. WilyD 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course we have an idea how often Mexico is NOT considered Central American! Educational systems of Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, Japan, China just to cite the ones I'm 100% sure teach that Mexico is NOT Central America. If they teach that obvioulsy their publications about geography are written this way. That is a pretty good idea about how often Mexico is NOT considered Central American. What countries teach other way? I think the most extended use of the term should be used in the first place, with notations that clarify the other uses. AlexCovarrubias 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Countries and Territories Proposal

Proposal
Given the fact that most of the english-speaking publications define North America as including Canada, the United States, Mexico, Bermuda, Greenland, St. Pierre and Miquelon, the nations of Central America and the Caribbean, I propouse the following:

• Group the Caribbean and Central America nations
• Leave ungrouped Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, Mexico, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and the US.
• Clarify the meaning and use of the term "Northern America"

As you can notice, this publications could always define the continent as consisting of "Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean". However, they decided only to mention the two last. It seems that the term Northern America is not very used or extended. Also most of the definitions of Central America does not often include Mexico (See my discussion and citations below).

My proposal will be coherent with the most usage and definition of the term "North America" (continent) in geographical and physiographical terms, not in political or economical ones. Please, leave your comments. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No -- this would appear rather odd; as well, other continental tables are not organised as ... oddly. The status quo table is fine with me. It currently accommodates for varying viewpoints through notes and links clarify matters. The subregional articles on Northern America, et al. are rather clear to me, though I'm all for adding content to round out matters regarding usage etc. And citations do not necessarily 'prove' anything per se but a particular point of view. 142.150.134.53 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

North America is formed by 3 subregions, North America, Central America and the Caribbean, so I ask, is there another reason beyond the UN excuse to not include Mexico in the North America subregion? because what are you showing in this article is a false information about Mexico and North America Jcmenal 12:44, 14 September 2006 (PST)

Citations to prove Mexico is not often included in Central America

This definitions are listed to prove that Mexico is not often considered as a Central American nation. Only english definitions are included. In Europe, Central and South America, Mexico is never listed as Central American.

American Heritage Dictoriaries
North America
The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland.
Website

Central America
A region of southern North America extending from the southern border of Mexico to the northern border of Colombia. It separates the Caribbean Sea from the Pacific Ocean and is linked to South America by the Isthmus of Panama.
Website

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

MSN Encarta Encyclopedia
North America (subregion)
Third largest of the seven continents, including Canada (the 2nd largest country in area in the world), the United States (3rd largest), and Mexico (14th largest). The continent also includes Greenland, the largest island, as well as the small French overseas department of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and the British dependency of Bermuda (both made up of small islands in the Atlantic Ocean). Together with Central America, the West Indies, and South America, North America makes up the Western Hemisphere of Earth.
Website

Central America
Central America, region of the western hemisphere, made up of a long, tapering isthmus that forms a bridge between North and South America. Central America, which is defined by geographers as part of North America, has an area of about 521,500 sq km (about 201,300 sq mi) and includes the countries of Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. The region has a population of approximately 36.4 million (2000 estimate).
Website

"North America," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia
North America (subregion)
Third largest continent, extending 9600 km/6000 mi from 70°30N to 15°N; Area c.24 million km²/9¼ million sq mi; separated from Asia by the Bering Strait; bounded by the Beaufort Sea (NW), Arctic Ocean (N), Baffin Bay and Davis Strait (NE), Atlantic Ocean (E), and Pacific Ocean (W); includes Canada, USA, and Mexico; numerous islands, including Baffin I, Newfoundland, and the West Indies; ranges include the Rocky Mts, Alaska Range (including Mt McKinley, highest point), and Appalachian Mts; major lake system, the Great Lakes; major rivers include the Mississippi, Missouri, Rio Grande, and St Lawrence.
Website

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, © Crystal Reference Systems Limited 2006

Columbia University Press
North America
Third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. North America includes all of the mainland and related offshore islands lying N of the Isthmus of Panama (which connects it with South America). The term “Anglo-America” is frequently used in reference to Canada and the United States combined, while the term “Middle America” is used to describe the region including Mexico, the republics of Central America, and the Caribbean.
Website

Central America
Central America, narrow, southernmost region (c.202,200 sq mi/523,698 sq km) of North America, linked to South America at Colombia. It separates the Caribbean from the Pacific. Generally, it is considered to consist of the seven republics (1990 est. pop. 29,000,000) of Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.
Website

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Houghton Mifflin Company
North America
Third-largest continent (after Asia and Africa), comprising Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Central America.

Central America
Region in the southernmost portion of North America, linked to South America by the Isthmus of Panama; includes Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

Encyclopaedia Britannica
North America
The third largest of the continents, North America extends from Alaska, the Queen Elizabeth Islands, and Greenland to Panama's eastern border with Colombia in South America. Canada, the United States, Mexico, the Central American republics, the Bahama Islands and the Greater and Lesser Antilles are all parts of North America—more than 9,300,000 square miles (24,100,000 square kilometers)
Website

Central America
Southern portion of North America (pop., 2005 est.: 39,806,000). It extends from the southern border of Mexico to the northwestern border of Colombia and from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. It includes Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Some geographers also include five states of Mexico: Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Campeche, Tabasco, and Chiapas.
Website

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved.

WordNet (Princeton University)
Central America
The isthmus joining North America and South America; extends from the southern border of Mexico to the northern border of Colombia
Website

WordNet 2.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved. More from WordNet

AlexCovarrubias 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Table Options

Okay, as I see it, we really only have two realisticly feasible table options:

• List the countries in subgroups, per the UN scheme
• List the countries in a single list

Using poorly defined regions to label groups simply isn't viable. I myself favour the second option on the basis that we're talking about North America - attempts to introduce extraneous information into list sorting seem poorly motivated. Applying the KISS principle, I am forced to conclude an alphabetically ordered list makes the most sense. What's the rational for using the UN subregions? None, as far as I can see. They're not particularly authoritative and can easily be referenced elsewhere in the article. Is this the most important division in North America? Probly not - certainly I see no reason to believe that. Rather than argue nebulous points in a scattered fashion above, let's address the only significant issue for this page head on. WilyD 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with alphabetically ordering the list of countries and I consider it a neutral way to present the information, I also have to add that in the first place, I favor only grouping the countries that are not controversial: Central America and the Caribbean.

If you note, multiple sourcers (cited, verifiable, prestigious) define the North American contient as consisting of Canada, United States, Mexico, Bermuda, Greenland, St. Pierre, the Central American nations and the Caribbean. They could have used the UN geoscheme and say "it consist of Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean". It is clear they used the firts definition for a reason: accuracy. I find excluding your claim that the only two realistic feasible ways to arrange the table are only those presented by you. It is clear what the prevalent definition of the term North America (continent) is.

AlexCovarrubias 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now you and I both know perfectly well that those groupings are highly contraversial. Many verifiable sources place Mexico partially or entirely in Central America - as we all know. If you have another equivilently authoritative source for alternative divisions, feel free to present it. But things like encyclopaedias are actually not very reliable (and certainly not prestigious). As far as I can tell, those are the only realistic, feasible options (or variations on a theme). For example, listing countries by area or population instead of alphabetically is feasible (though I think bad). WilyD 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Physiographically according to some authorities a portion of the southeast of Mexico is in the (Central American) region. That portion represents only 12.11% of all Mexico. Mexico being mostly in North American (region) is why it is not often listed as Central American but as North American. The question here is, are those countries grouped under what kind of criteria? Political? Economics? Geographic?

Why to consider Mexico politically Central America when both Mexicans and CA do not consider it? European, South American, Chinese and Japanese people do not consider it CA (for example). I think no one else can declare Mexico politically Central American, but the Government of Mexico. Why to consider Mexico geographically CA when the percentage of its territory is 87.79%-100% in North America (according with the definition)? Why to consider Mexico economically CA when Mexico is more linked to the US and Canada than to CA?

Politically Central America consists in 7 countries (Belize, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama) this is highly verifiable. Geographically Mexico is only 12.11% in Central America (according to some definitions). So the argument of Mexico being Central America seems only an excluding and politically conservative one.

However, I'm still waiting for those multiple verifiable definitions you said exist. AlexCovarrubias 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're actually not, since at least one other has been presented in this talk page (in addition to the obvious UN one).

Whether one ought to use a political, geographic, historical, whatever definition of Central America is not a question any of us can really answer without just trying to shove our own opinions down everyone else's throats. Whether this is an excluding or politically conservative position I have no idea (nor do I really see a rational for believing those). What I care about is what's actually done - not really why. There's still very little evidence to include Mexico in North America (region) as anything other than a rare oddity (exclusion from Central America does not imply inclusion in North America (region).

Self-determination is a nice sounding argument, which is essentially impossible to apply with any usefulness. The standard Wikipedia policy is to apply the name something is called most often in English for article titles, and explain it in detail in the article - tables aren't exactly places for explaining in detail so I'm a little hard pressed to see how to deal with it in table form if we try to build subgroups from multiple sources. Apart from which, it's hard to do when a single group tries to cut itself into pieces but you want to do an article on the single group. If tommorow morning Cubans began insisting Cuban was an Asian country, we wouldn't move it to the Asia article.

Anyways, this all continues to avoid the question I'm trying to ask directly: Is there any rational for using subregions? - I continue to see none, except perhaps (as you've suggested as well) to soapbox. WilyD 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I've been busy and will provide more definitive citations shortly. In lieu, please consult

• Fowler's Modern English Usage (p. 48), America entry: this clearly indicates the inclusion (in common English usage) of Mexico in Central America (with, e.g., Nicaragua).
• The Oxford Companion to the English Language (p. 707), North American entry: particularly used to describe (a person from) the U.S. and Canada with Canadians preferring this term over American because it is inclusive and allows distinction from Americans. Also see American entry (pp. 34-5) for additional treatments regarding usage; also North America is used in this manner in, e.g., Canadian Oxford World Atlas (in various thematic world maps towards the back)
• various atlases do depict Mexico in North and (all of it) Central America (e.g., (Smithsonian) Collins Discovery World Atlas)
• GeoHive uses the UN scheme
• in various Encyclopædia Britannica Book(s) of the Year (e.g., 2003), Anglo-America (incorrectly) is used to delineate territories statistically that, per relevant notations, correspond precisely with the UN's reckoning of Northern America. Latin America (as with UN) is used for the other countries of the Americas.

More will follow.

As for categorising territories according to subregion, there are a variety of reasons -- i.e., no soap box:

(1) they provide a rough frame of reference for visitors when placing/locating the various territories of the continent that would be unwieldy in text references -- e.g., Caribbean comprised of A, B, C, et al.; Nicaragua in Central America, etc.

(2) there is little use in listing a littany of 30+ territories without some sort of organisation

(3) the other continental tables are categorised as such, based on the UN sub/regional scheme -- there's no reason to not do so here.

Frankly, if the UN had included Mexico in Northern America, I would not dispute that ... but they didn't, so ...

And given that there are more than a million online references to Northern America and it is not just used by the UN, I do not support recent premature, table edits -- and an arguably original scheme -- by AC. If anything, UN or alphabetical. And if AC's current table isn't changed, it will be. 65.92.175.29 16:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first two citations does not prove Mexico is included in the Central American region or "continent" (as some publications treat it). In fact, both Fowler's and Oxford dictionaries treat common usage of the words, in American and UK english. We are trying here to list the countries based in geographical terms in the first place, right?. I asked to people to check their Fowler's dictionary and I was replied it says nothing about Mexico being included in Central America (they checked the word "America") (See posting here). Saying that "various" atlases depict Mexico entirely in Central America is a very doubious claim if you do not provide verifiable sources, as you repeatedely asked me to do. Why don't you paste also some URLs? It would help a lot... oh and "various" sources please.

You are not making much sense -- perhaps you need to learn how to read. My sources 'prove' my point(s) as much as yours do -- I ventured out explicitly to consult these volumes. Again, asking your 'friends' to help verify information doesn't count -- go out to your local library or buy Fowler's (which is a guide to English usage, not a dictionary; I do know what the other dictionaries say about the various regions, I might add). To address your insurmountable skepticism, I will provide (and or scan) the exact Fowler's reference shortly. Also, I've indicated two atlases where such terminology is used, and not everything is online. The point is that you have continually insinuated English usage of North America/Central America -- and this is the English Wikipedia -- to mean one thing, when other sources (and other arguments) have been provided to mean another. You first want Mexico (and you are a self-admitted national) to be in 'North America (subregion)', while foregoing an inherently neutral scheme, and then advocate for including it in a nebulous scheme/region that only you agree with. Again, you are steering content to reflect how you would like to see Mexico included. Regardless of my nationality, I've maintained my position throughout and see no reason to divert. 142.150.134.50 13:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, again, we are trying to list the countries based in geographical terms. I suggest you (or anyone else interested) in find verifiable definitions based in the question "What sources geographically define Central America (region) as containing Mexico? (100%)? We already know that a portion (12.11%) of southeastern Mexico is sometimes considered to be in CA. However, that implies that 87.89% of its territory is in North American. So, basicly that is why most of the deinitions for Central America, does not includes Mexico. Using the UN geoscheme that does include Mexico in the region (only for statistical convinience, as stated by the UN) is confusing. My opinion? Only to group the well defined groups of nations (accepted internacionally and most importantly by themselves) of Central America and the Caribbean, or to list the countries alphabetically. AlexCovarrubias 07:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, geography is a broad topic, dealing with both physical and human elements -- you have a predilection for cherry-picking elements, which I do not share. Tectonic plates no more define continents than the stars do (e.g., eastern Russia on North American plate) and not one source corroborates this -- in summary, continents are large continuous landmasses (with nearby islands) delineated by shoreline, continental shelf, or convention (America, Eurasia = Europe/Asia). As well, many things are merely for convenience (including a tabular grouping of territories with statistics -- sound familiar? -- and indulgence of excessive hyperbole), so dismissing neutral, verifiable notions regardind sub/regions that are inherently subjective cannot be done so easily; for example, Colombia, Venezuela, and the Guianas are sometimes considered Caribbean territories. Your use of 'well-defined' and 'internationally accepted' are challenged and rather weasely, since sources have been provided to counteract them. And if the items are listed alphabetically ... fine, but I shall add a column to the table including the regions per a neutral scheme ... 142.150.134.50 13:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, you're making threats, with your comment:

"And if the items are listed alphabetically ... fine, but I shall add a column to the table including the regions per a neutral scheme...".

You are only proving that no matter what citations, real verifiable content is provided, you do want to include Mexico in Central America, no matter what most of the publications say about it, no matter geopolitically Mexico is not frequently considered Central America (as yourself wrote once in the table), no matter that even physiographically (your favorite argument) Mexico is only 12.11% in Central America... No matter that the term "Middle America" (included in the list by YOU) clearly separates Mexico from Central America... Your point of view is totally biased, meaning prejudiced, meaning that you do not want to accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. Wikipedia:NPOV What claim? That Mexico is not frequently considered Central American. C'mon, you know it, you were the one that also wrote the note for Mexico "geopolitically is not frequently reckoned in Central America".

You should really read Wikipedia:NPOV. Even if this is the english Wikipedia, it does not mean that the American/UK/Canadian point of view should prevail. Again, in Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe and in China and Japan (at least), Mexico is not listed in Central America. So, why should we include it in Central America? Only because it pleases you? You support the UN geoscheme because it works for your interests and believings, but it is certainly not neutral. And however... when was it created? Because it seems it just does not fit the actual teachings and geopolitical arrangement of the world. You have stated very clear that no matter what, you will "add a column to the table including the regions per a neutral scheme"... that is stubborn and biased. With your attitude you are commiting the following bias (according with the Wikipedia:NPOV)

Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism.

Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.

Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

I am here to write a neutral article, meaning including all of the different point of views. I have never tried to exclude the term "Northern America" nor to include Mexico in it. I only do not want Mexico to be included in Central America because of the various, verifiable reasons I have given. You, on the other hand, are now threatening us not to leave the article alone if we decide to list the countries alphabetically, that is not the attitude my friend, and it is not constructive nor civilized.

Finally, wouldn't you be happy enough if we use the term Northern America to group US and Canada ONLY? It just seems very very odd that is not enough for you... you also want to include Mexico in Central America... it is very obvious you are biased. AlexCovarrubias 04:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Australia (continent) doesn't use the UN Scheme ... and while there's always a drive to homogenise related articles, concensus has always been to not do so where individual article editors don't like the overall scheme. We're clearly free to ignore the UN scheme if we feel that's most appropriate for North America. WilyD 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's because there's a table -- with all the trimmings -- in Oceania ... which includes Australasia that is largely made up of Australia (continent), i.e., the only continent/country (fpr brevity, I know the two aren't precisely the same). And I think we're clear to ignore this or that, but I still see little reason to do so here or in the other continent/macro-regional articles. Take a glance at Europe (perhaps far more divisive), for example, and there seems to be relative calm there even though 'Central Europe' is a comonly known subregion (not in the UN scheme). PS: consensus (no mid c) :) 65.92.175.29 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I retract the Australia note - but it's still the case that we can choose to ignore the formatting of the other articles if we feel it doesn't work for North America. As for concensus, this is a talk page, and we're all free to speak our own dialect of english - articles should be uniform, talk pages need not be. I'm not about to start speaking American English WilyD 22:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can ignore this and that ... but I see little reason to given the above. If anything, add content to equilibrate content, not remove it. BTW: as for AmE, WilyD, I'm unsure where that argumentation is going since "consensus" is spelled that way in all dialects of English. :) 142.150.134.53 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't want to shy away from discussions about the vague use of North America (Region), Central America, whatever - but the argument can be made that the table format is not suitable for delicate arguments, and thus we should really stick to essentially non-contraversial use on the table, and get into the finer points in the discussion. Excising information from the table doesn't need to mean exicsing information from the article. As for concensus, it's still used in (at least one dialect) - certain dialects are more flexible than others (and I speak one that's very generous with respect to spelling.) WilyD 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor would I, but I think that is a red herring of an argument: Wp is a crucible of sorts predicated on verifiability and neutrality -- sensitivities are allayed by upfront notation (V) and the various points of view and notes already in the article indicating this and that (NPOV). And you will note that AC's prior editions have sought to remove verifiable notations of Northern America (also note prior indications of 'developed vs. developing' countries as being biased, even racist) in favour of perhaps more obscure and over-generalised references that cannot be corroborated fully. Given the scheme upon which it is based, I maintain that the current table (as are the others for continents/regions in Wp) is suitable.

In addition, I'm unsure what dialect of English you're speaking, but if it's the same that I am familiar with, even the (Oxford) Guide to Canadian English Usage (at least this one's in front of me!) indicates the following in its "consensus" entry (p. 130): "Note that consensus is frequently misspelled concensus." :) 142.150.134.50 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, given that there's a huge amount of disagreement on what's best, can I ask: Does anyone find uncategorised unacceptable as opposed to unpreferable - As it stands now, the table is obviously unacceptable - but as far as I read arguments people feel there are a number of options that are superior to uncategorised, but I haven't seen a flat no to the idea? If we can all live with that, why not move it there for now while we sort this out? WilyD 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Define what you mean by uncategorized so we know what you're asking. (SEWilco 17:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Uncategorised = alphabetised, which is unpreferable. 65.92.175.29 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to establish consensus for preferable, but acceptable. Do you have any thoughts on the acceptability of not using subregions, with reasons why it's unacceptable? WilyD 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is directed at me: it is only just acceptable. However, this goes back to the reasoning as to why using subregions may or may not be acceptable. As we are dealing with topics of geography, it seems rather awkward to not include regions or delineate things that way as best as possible. Yes: usage and interpretations differ, but alphabetical lists glean nothing about where is what. And note that an alphabetical list can be morphed to include a column containing regional or other information, so this makes it simple. 65.92.175.29 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was directing this at your comment that it's unpreferable. As it stands, we have essentially no concensus at all about how to list the countries - so I'm trying to establish a concensus about what's acceptable so we can stop reverting the article, then we can try to find a concensus to go from there. I'm advocating uncategorised because it seems the least objectionable (and I haven't seen anyone say it's unacceptable). Obviously we have a number of potential schemes that get past WP:V and it's being argued choosing one fails WP:NPOV (I'm not sure this is true, but I digress). From there, some type of reordering or categorisation is something we can talk about (and hopefully reach a conclusion on) but there article has been undergoing a reversion war for at least a month - it'd be nice if we could at least stop that. WilyD 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"As it stands now" is ambiguous because the table has changed several times recently. There are too many entries for them to not be grouped in some fashion. This is a geographical article so a geographical grouping seems relevant, rather than something like the number of McDonald's franchises. (SEWilco 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

I believe the table harking of the UN scheme was in place for months before recent editing, with periodic moves of various islands or Mexico from Central America to Northern America. 65.92.175.29 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been mostly in place for a while, but there's a long standing traditions of problems (mostly with Mexico) WilyD 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It think listing the countries alphabetically is acceptable. And it is more prefferable than having only one categorization based in one point of view.AlexCovarrubias 06:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, excellent - the real problem seems to be a)the UN scheme is generically used in other articles (though I'm not sure this is a well thought out policy, rather than just done on a lark, b) Central America is very problematic, because Mexico (and to a lesser extent Belize) suffer POV problems from either inclusion or non-inclusion in Central America. If the UN scheme just had some less contraversial name (and they're content to make up Northern America) life would be easier.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced having some countries grouped and some not (a scheme Alex had proposed at one point) is highly problematic - it affords a special status to the uncategorised countries that I don't believe we can justify. I had considered dropping Northern America and Central America and just sticking with Caribbean and unsorted, but I'm now convinced this is untenable.

Is anyone claiming that unsorted is unacceptable rather than unpreferable? WilyD 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just unpreferable, but not unacceptable. Look Wily I'm kind of very frustrated with this "discussion", because no matter what evidence I bring here, you guys keep saying it is not enough... Ok, here I go again, both the Caribbean and the Central American nations have a well defined political system aswell as historical background. The 7 Central American nations are well self-identified as Central Americans, and they always tend to consult eachother when making political decisions. Take for example the Central American Parliament. The only state that is not part of it is Costa Rica, but they do not claim not being Central American, it is just a political decision and very debated in the country. Including Mexico in Central America when both Mexicans and Central Americans do not consider it to be CA, is really biased. As for Belize, perhaps the EU does not include it in CA, but they DO consider themselves as Central Americans! C'mon Wily, I know you can understand the point I'm trying to make here... you know just like me that this is an excluding POV from some Americans and Canadians (not all of them, of course! I have very very good canadian and americans friends). This anonimous IP guy seems to be really concerned about not letting Mexico out of Central America... saying that "only english POV should prevail"... wrong, NPOV policies clearly states that "favoring the interests or views of a particular nation" is Nationalistic bias... and as you can read above, he even dared to make some kind of threat by saying if we categorise the countries alphabetically he is, no matter what, going to create a "column" to "neutrally" assing each country a region... that only proves he is totally biased and not willing to include other POVs... help me out here friend, you seem to be a more rational person. AlexCovarrubias 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand its frustrating, but such can be the nature of concensus. Your citations certainly show lots of people don't consider Mexico Central American - but many other citations have been provided to show that Mexico is considered Central American. Self-determination is a tricky subject here, per the absurdum arguments (such as If Cuba declared itself an Asian nation, would we move it to Asia in articles?) - and generally common english usage does prevail with notes about otherwise, i.e. North Korea. Generally, all POV should be represented in factual disputes fairly, but in linguistic disputes english usage has to take precendence. And in naming and the lot, general policy is that it does - there's a huge, long war at Kiev for reference if you want to see how these things go. In the table format, there's only so much information we can convey (and footnotes shouldn't really be used to denote highly contraversial things where avoidable, they don't carry the same impact. What I'm looking for is a way all the information we have can be represented fairly - and the argument has been made (and I find it convincing) that the table can't adequately deal with the issue of Central America. Part of the probly is that there's different ways to define Central America (politically = no Mexico, geographically = some Mexico, linguistically = All Mexico) and that there are multiple, reliable, verifiable sources that specifically include and specifically exclude Mexico from Central America. Adding more sources to either side isn't productive - Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, we can't simply deny a reliable source because it's at odds with other reliable sources. WilyD 13:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your message is highly calming to me, it made me feel that at least you are considering some of my points, may be some others also would understand or try to understand at least. I agree that footnotes have not the same impact, specially in controversial issues, that is why I added a note at the start of the subarticle. I'm not sure if you took me wrong but I don't want to erase references to Northern America or to the use of North America meaning "US and Canada only", becasue I'm aware of the usage in these countries. In fact, I created a subsection called "Common usage", because I know the most extended use of the term North America in US and Canada. All I'd like to do is not to present the version that Mexico is in Central America as the most extended, because it is not, and I think I have proved it. Most of the world does not include Mexico in its definition of the region. Well, thanks for your time reading this. AlexCovarrubias 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that a common usage section is useful, but the calls for specific citations aren't unreasonable (and the ways it's written now may be overally generalised and permeated by weaselling). It's certainly worth working on. WilyD 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Caribbean nations

Why is there a list of Caribbean nations in this article? Most are on their own tectonic plate. It's like having Oceania and New Zealand in Australia (continent). (SEWilco 17:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

This is an incorrect synposis: all things are not equal. According to the McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Earth Science (not a direct quote; p. 36), continents may or may not be delineated merely by their coastlines (as maps generally imply) OR the continental shelves, including nearby islands, not necessarily by the tectonic plates the landmasses reside on. (e.g., much of eastern Russia on North American Plate). The islands of the Caribbean (and not all of them, like Cuba) are on the Caribbean Plate, which is a geologically diffuse region; Trinidad and Aruba lie on the South American plate/shelf (Tobago and the Leeward Antilles lie on the diffuse continental slope), the other Antilles lie ambiguously on diffuse shelves belonging to neither continent), but ALL of them are generally included with the other Caribbean island countries of North America on maps, tables, and ...

the UN scheme, which is in use for all continents/regions and (apparently?) implemented to organise territories in a more-or-less neutral way. As the above indicates, though, some insinuate other arrangements.

BTW: 'Oceania' (the region, sometimes reckoned as a continent) has various meanings, some of which include Australia and or NZ. If anything, it is more appropriate to include Australasia (frequently Australia and NZ) in Oceania, not vice versa. the fact that Australia (continent) does not have a table is probably a testimony to the plethora of islands and meanings/interpretations of these various terms. 65.92.175.29 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

... and the fact that, per the UN scheme, said table is in the Oceania article instead. 65.92.175.29 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The map does give away what is or isn't labelled Australia in the article, though (it's just Australia, Papua, and half of Indonesia) WilyD 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Which would seem to correspond to those territories strictly on the Australian continental shelf ... I think. 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - but if it is, it's probly unique in that respect (i.e. Asia, Europe both occupy multiple plates) WilyD 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: my reckonings consider the relevant continental shelves ... which are not synonymous with the tectonic plate. I think we are in agreement, but I just wanted to point out the distinction. 65.92.175.29 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sure - but even still, continental shelves clearly aren't the invariable limit (i.e. islands are often not on the shelf but on the continent (Iceland) and some continents share a shelf (Europe, Asia, Africa?) WilyD 22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Granted: I'm unsure where I read it, but continents may also include islands in proximity to their mainlands. Iceland is tricky since its continental shelf slope is somewhat diffuse but still historically connected (I think?) to Europe. And there are conventional/regional distinctions -- I mean, many authorities consider Europe and Asia one continent (Eurasia; see McGraw-Hill volume above), add to that Africa (Eurafrasia); others consider just America ... all the more reason IMO to stick to delineations per the UN scheme. 65.92.175.29 22:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Iceland is European only for historical reasons, not geographical. Which is (generally) how all continents are deliniated. WilyD 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While I stand corrected about Iceland physiographically (it appeared this way in one of my atlases), I don't necessarily agree that all are delineated historically per se ... I mean: Antarctica is pretty discreet, no? ;) 142.150.134.53 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, except maybe one or two islands (south sandwich, whatever). WilyD 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the Caribbean is part of the Continent of North America - continents are not defined by tectonic plates, even in many indisputable examples (such as the North America plate extending well into Asia) WilyD 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some observations

First of all, be advised that I am Mexican and thus may be biased when it comes to this topic. However I was asked by Alex to comment on the subject matter of this dispute. I will address especifically the issue of Mexico in North America, but a few of the points may be extended to Central America proper as well.

By the way, this issue remids me of the case of Panama, where some Panamenians tend to consider themselves part of South America. Yet their government sends representatives to the Central American Parliament. But I digress...

I am surprised at the persistent invocation of NPOV without actually trying to compromise. There are indeed several definitions of North America depending on context: there are socio-cultural arguments, like the cultural background of the speaker using the term, the language he/she is using at the moment, nationality and so on. There are also all the geopolitical combinations: NAFTA, UN, NATO, WTO, the US Central Command, "spheres of influence" et al. Finally do not forget all the geographical arguments proper: plate tectonics, istmus, etc. All these considerations are easy to source and non-controversial when used on their own. I do recognize, however, the difficulty of incorporating all this information in the article in a balanced way that does not take things out of context.

To further illustrate the complexity of this debate, let me give you some examples from my personal experience. Most of these are anecdotical and obviously cannot be sourced. The only purpose of this list is to show that the dichotomy some editors champion in this debate does not exist from my very personal POV:

• Government textbooks in Mexico do consider the country to be in "North America" up to the Tehuantepec Istmus. Or at least they did when I went to school.
• I have no qualms in using North America to refer to US and Canada only when talking to an American or Canadian.
• However I tend to avoid this usage when speaking to fellow Mexicans.
• I went to an international high-school were many Americans (as in representatives of the whole continent) attended. At some point we had a heated debate on exactly this very issue. The compromise we reached is that Mexico is geographically linked to North America, yet is culturally closer to other Latin American (and by extension Central American) countries. To date I still think this is the most sensible position on the issue.
• Yet my experience with the Canadians and Americans I've spoken to indicidually is mixed when it comes to this issue. Some consider Mexico to be in NA, some don't and many of them could not care less.

I am quite disappointed at the virulent POV some editors have taken into this issue. Some of the comments above are certainly not the best Wikipedia has to offer to outside readers. The article clearly has the room to expand on this issue without diluting the rest of the material. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight - I'm fairly sure no one's really opposed to adding information to the article - what's really problematic is a table, which does not easily lend itself to comprimise. I suspect the unforgiving requirements of a table are the real reason behind all the difficulties. I don't think there's really any dispute about how the usages are used - but more like focus disputes. Mexicans seem to think they're in the cultural North America whilst American, Canadian and Newfoundland English use North American as a contrast to Latin American culturally - thus it excludes Mexicans from North America (the continent is really established, except maybe the eastern half of Panama). This isn't really in dispute. It's just hard to go into this in a table. WilyD 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen little evidence to suggest that Mexicans think they're in "cultural North America" (if you're thinking of chicanos you're being misled since by now they are a distinct cultural group). Cultural influence/pressure from the US is indeed strong in Mexico (and especially felt in the cities) but that argument alone is not enough to support such broad generalization as you seem to be making.

As for the table, the alphabetized layout seems more neutral to me in the context of this dispute. It will probably end up being heavily annotated anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 07:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, Mexicans are well aware of the cultural differences between Canada, US and Mexico. But when some Americans and Canadians use the term "North America" to refer to only these countries, the average Mexican would think that, they are even trying to exclude Mexico geographically from North America. Why? Because to Mexicans, America's geographic regions are linked also to cultural matters. Central America, South America and the Caribbean are geographic regions as well as cultural divisions. AlexCovarrubias 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a little confused on this point then - are you trying to argue that Mexico is more culturally similar to Anglo-America than it is to Latin America? I would expect that most Americans and Canadians do not really think of Central America and South America being all that culturally different (at least, not more that the country to country variation within either one). Roughly speaking, if I was dropped in a village of 500 people randomly somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, I'd probly figure out very quickly whether it was Anglo-America or Latin America, but beyond that more specific would take a lot longer (unless it was climatologically obvious). WilyD 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I just figured out I didn't explain myself in the previous post. Mexicans as well as Latin Americans are taught that North America (region) is composed of Canada, US and Mexico, and that the three countries have cultural differences. Canadians and Americans use the term "North America" culturally speaking, but the average Mexican would believe they use it geographically and will object saying that cultural differences are not enough reason to "drop out" Mexico from the geographical region. Then, if they are not considered North Americans, they will think they consider them Central Americans, not only geographically but culturally, something that Mexicans surely do not feel part of. AlexCovarrubias 14:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can call it semantics, but I donno when Caribbean was changed to "North America" myself but it seems to be pretty commonly referred to as such now. Britain specifically referred to their colonies in the Caribbean as "North Atlantic" in most of their national Constitutions. But I think the term "North American" started to stick once the British Islands across the Caribbean were delegated with US/Canadian styled North American telephone area codes. As seen in the article on NANP. Mexico I think also used to be regarded as Central American prior to NAFTA. If you can back, many movies or even Cartoons from America gave the image that Americans used to view North America as anything north of the "Rio Grande" on the Texas border.

Dominica and St-Lucia

These two Caribbean island nations ought not be classified as part of the French-speaking word. They were definitively lost by France to Britain during the Napoleonic wars and are now clearly English-speaking even if there is some survival of the French-derived Creole

Drepanopulos

Politically "North American"

Given that Cuba doesn't meet either of the tests you applied to Greenland, yet is indisputably North American, they're really not sufficient. Apart from which, since the idea that Greenland isn't North American politically (something I've never seen before) is disputed, a citation needs to be offered. Usual WP:OR and WP:CITE criteria apply.

Apart from which, Greenland isn't an independant country. It's part of Denmark (with self-rule, but whatever) and so their reasons for not attending these kinds of things need to be made explicit somewhere - we can't simply guess at them. French Guiana also fails both tests you've applied to Greenland, but would anyone say it's not "Politically South American" - seems unlikely, even though it obviously has stronger ties to Europe than most South American countries. WilyD 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Greenland and French Guayana are not politically active in the continent politics, both countries are not part of the OAS. Cuba is a member of the OAS, but its membership rights are suspended due to a request by the USA. French Guyana also rejected to enter the propoused "South American Union of Nations" propoused by Venezuela, Argentina, and several other South American countries. Both Greenland and F. Guayana are not politically tied to North/South America not because of an exclusion but because they chose no to be actively involved in this continent politics. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the Cuba isn't the best parallel. But there's a long way between "Not that poltically active on the continent" and "Not politically on the continent". Greenland witdrew from the EC (which is was a member of only because of Danish rule). If we say "Greenland is not politically European or North American" - what's plausibly left? Even the OAS or the Summit of the Americas are not great criteria. On Jan 1, 1990, Canada, Belize and Guyana were not members of the OAS. But saying I was born "politically outside of North America" is an idea I would consider laughable - it would definitely need to be cited, in any event.

The important point is:it's not obvious or uncontraversial, so it needs to be cited. WilyD 15:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Human Geography - demographics

The article reads: "Its three main ethnic groups are Whites, Mestizos and African-Americans.[citation needed] " Aren't these "races," not ethnic groups? For example, there are many ethnicities within "racial" banner of "White" and "Mestizo," yes? Peer Gynt 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tectonic elements photograph missing

The link of the file s broken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.135.59.220 (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

North and South America are two continents

I've just removed this comment, apparently not for the first time:

• In Latin America, Iberia, and some other parts of Europe, the Americas are often considered a single continent. Under such circumstances, North America is considered a subcontinent containing only Canada, U.S. and Mexico^{[citation needed]}.

Regardless of what some people may believe, North America and South America are two separate continents. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not what people believe. The theory of arrangement of the 7 continents (N. and S. America being counted as two separated continents) is not the only one. The most extended is the arragement of the 5 continents, being taught in Latin America, most of Europe, China, Japan, India and other parts of Asia. So, that acclaratory note was introduced in order to notify the user that the consideration of North America as a continent is not the only one out there. Please see Continent. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, the reality of Plate tectonics is that North America and South America are, in fact, two separate continents. A scientific fact isn't subject to "what people believe". Citations:

• Britannica: "Continent: one of the larger continuous masses of land, namely, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia, listed in order of size. (Europe and Asia are sometimes considered a single continent, Eurasia.)"
• Encarta: "A continent is distinguished from an island or a peninsula not merely by greater size but also by geological structure and development (see below). The continents, in order of size, are Eurasia (conventionally regarded as the two continents of Europe, individually the second smallest, and Asia), Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia."
• Dictionary definition: "one of the main landmasses of the globe, usually reckoned as seven in number (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica)."

While some people might -- incorrectly -- believe that the Americas constitute a single continent, they would be wrong. Now that I'm looking back at the page history, I see that this subject has come up in the past (Talk:North America#Continent or not), and the result appears to have been that there are no reliable sources that make the claim that the Americas are a single continent. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, the reality of Plate tectonics is that North America and South America are, in fact, two separate continents.. Then, the South of California is another continent.--Iblard 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is about how the term "North America" is used, so I reinstated the legitimate observation that Canadians and Americans often use the term "North America" in casual conversation to mean just those two countries, because of their strong cultural similarities...with Mexico grouped in with Central America because of cultural rather than geographical reasons. And I added back the {{Fact}} tag to the comment about some people incorrectly considering the Americas to be a single continent. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, you said "See Continent". Wikipedia, of course, isn't a reliable source, but I took a look. Continent#Number of continents does include an assertion that some people (incorrectly) consider the Americas to be a single continent. Unlike the well established 7-continent model (Europe and Asia counted as two separate continents) and the 6-continent model (Eurasia considered a single supercontinent), there are no citations for the mistaken belief that the Americas are a single continent. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex appears to be edit-warring, hoping that no one is still being vigilant. I wish he would discuss it here instead of edit-warring. Netuser500 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. We should not pass judgement in other educational systems teachings. And the section we are talking about is "usage of the term". It is very clear that there are other uses of the term North America under certain contexts. Example, NA = USA and Canada, NA = USA, Canada and Mexico, NA = USA, Canada, Mexico and Central America. That section was only created to inform the users that there are several uses. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that two or three people keep reverting your edits, but you keep putting them back. If that isn't the definition of edit-warring, I don't know what is. Netuser500 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did reinstate the comment that Americans and Canadians sometimes informally (mis)use the term "North America" in a very broad cultural sense as shorthand for "Canada and the United States" -- with the full understanding that the continent of North America actually includes everything as far south as Panama. As that usage is very informal and not particularly encyclopedic, I wouldn't be especially upset if someone were to insist on removing it. It's quite a different thing to say, with no citations, that "some people consider the Americas to be a single continent". Certainly no scientist considers the Americas to be a single continent, nor does any encyclopedia or dictionary that I've checked. If other educational systems teach that the Americas are a single continent, they are misleading their students; it's not correct for Wikipedia to report that "some people believe" such-and-such when we know that such-and-such is false. Or if it does seem appropriate to include it as popular usage, we need to say that it's popular usage, not scientifically correct. BTW, has anyone found any citations about the Americas being considered a single continent? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While not a technical citation, each of rings of the Olympic flag represent 'each of the continents', one being America; see that article. There may also be citations in other languages that the Americas form a single continent; I haven't seen any of these, though. Corticopia 09:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the comment about the IOC; I discounted it because Pierre de Coubertin's earliest comments about the meaning of the Olympic rings don't appear to use the word continent, for example: "These five rings – blue, yellow, black, green and red – represent the five parts of the world now encompassed by Olympism and ready to compete against each other." Coubertin (Selected Writings II, p. 460, 1913).[11] On the other hand, there are later quotes from him on the IOC site that apparently do use the phrase "five continents". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted; I added a PDF reference to the 'continent' article, linking to the IOC's current voting blocks; the continents according to the IOC are Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Corticopia 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe one shouldnt pass judgment on other nations educational systems this lightly; Jim has stated that "if someone teaches students that America is a single continent, they are wrong". I wonder where is the right definition then.

Well, my dictionary gives the definition of continent to require the usual seven. That seems to imply that teaching that the Americas are a single continent is incorrect English usage (not necessarily geography). WilyD 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let us check how the definition of continent works around the globe. What I meant was that the world doenst necessarily have 7 continents because you (in extent, the english languange) believe that it has. As a matter of fact, as was stated above, most of the worlds population believe otherwise. Likewise, the "dictionary" that you checked most likely is in english, thus the bias is not filtered.LtDoc 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage of 'North America'

This edit, and others, concerns me. I am reinstating the cited reference by the anon: the claim that it was 'already checked' is patently false (see scanned page):

Editions from the offending editor should be treated with skepticism. Enough said. Corticopia 08:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ISBN 0-19-214183-X) indicates the following for North American (page 707):

• The adjective for North America and the name of a person born in North America, particularly the US and Canada. Canadians tend to use the term more than Americans, because it is inclusive and enables them to distinguish themselves from Americans ...

I can scan in this page, if desired. Feel free to paraphrase the current content and provide counter-evidence before making changes, but don't revise a quotation from a common English usage guide to say something it clearly does not and for which other references haven't been provided. Thanks. Corticopia 16:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

North America != USA + Canada

Can I get a little help here - Corticopia has seen to go 3RR with me over a reference from Fowler's which is at odds with most other references on the matter. Fowler's says that North America usually means USA + Canada, while dictionaries, atlasas, and encyclopedias are clear that it does not. Remember that dictionaries follow common usage, while atlases might be more prescriptive. encyclopedias (ignore Wikipedia) dictionaries atlas atlas ... --Yath 16:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand what I'm getting at. Of course Mexico, the countries of Central America, and (generally) the Caribbean are part of the North American continent -- no debate. They may also be in any number of regions, in different languages (e.g., Spanish). However, that is not the issue: it's about how the term North America is used in English. Fowler's (scanned page, which was added long ago, 'checked' and removed in error) and the Oxford guide above -- two prominent guides to English and its usage (which I am gladly in possession of) -- clearly indicate that the term is often used in English to refer to just the United States and Canada. That doesn't deny that there are other uses, but please provide relevant sources about usage if you think differently. Thanks. Corticopia 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The scanned page from Fowler's corresponds to what I said above. Canadians and Americans often -- casually and informally -- use the term "North America" as shorthand for "Canada and the United States". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No debate, but note that Fowler's is a pre-eminent guide dealing largely with British English, so this understanding may extend beyond the Americas. Corticopia 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand at all - that's why I mentioned that dictionaries follow common usage. I had hoped that would alert you to the reason that Fowler's is not the only source that applies to this matter. --Yath 16:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could've fooled me. That is the point: the term means different things to different people. Note that there's no issue with content elsewhere in the article indicating otherwise, but the sources provided regarding usage in English are clear. And, again, do not change a quotation: if you are going to make edits, paraphrase. Corticopia 17:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the point is that different sources say different things. They are in conflict. They do not agree with one another. And it isn't a quotation - the sentence in question was there before anybody looked in Fowler's. --Yath 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sources indicate nothing about usage. And, no: the sentence in question was in a paraphrased state beforehand, until the offending user removed it without comment and after 'checking' it and claiming it false. I found this rather weird (since its removal seemed rather definitive), so (having both volumes) I checked it out and found it to be true and added the exact quotation to prevent this very sort of behaviour: i.e., adding information without sources or crying foul. Corticopia 17:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yath, you say you don't misunderstand, but then you repeat the same (apparent) misunderstanding. There are two statements here: (1) The North American continent is the landmass that includes all nations from Canada and Alaska to the north through Panama in the south. And (2) The term "North America" is often used casually and informally by Canadians and Americans (and apparently by others, based on the above reference) to mean just "Canada and the United States". Does that clarify things? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this again. Dictionaries follow common usage. They just don't state it explicitly, as Fowler's does. --Yath 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yath. You are misreading this thread. If you stop, take a breath, and read everything starting at North and South America are two continents above, you will see that nobody is claiming that North America equals "Canada and the United States". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I started this thread. I started it to discuss the issue of how the term "North America" is used. Not what it "is" in a prescriptive, concrete sense. You seem to be the only one focusing on the latter. So, get back with us. This is about how people generally use the term. Now: I said that dictionaries are about how the term is used. They don't try to tell us what the term ought to mean. Thus, since they do not mention the "US + Canada" usage, they contradict Fowler's. Is it clear now? --Yath 14:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I personally did not check Fowler's dictionary. It was a friend from Canada that borrowed the book from his school and he told me it says nothing about North America. I guess he checked the word "North America" and that scan is about the word "America". However, the subsection is about the use of the term NORTH AMERICA not Central America or South America. And however there is a lot of evidence that Mexico is not often included in CA. As I already said, it is about NA not CA or South America. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The current edition is more or less fine but should be improved. Please use more discretion before initiating edit wars based on heresay ... and (directed at relevant editors) please do not remove citations and do not edit quotations to say things they don't. :) Corticopia 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about whether the subsequent comments about Latin America should be included. Alex, here's the rationale for including them: If you use the term "North America" as shorthand for "Canada and the United States", it's reasonable to ask "then where is Mexico?" And the answer, in that model, is that Mexico is (culturally, historically, linguistically) in Central America. All of this is understood to be simply informal common usage; there is absolutely no dispute that, geographically speaking, Mexico is on the continent of North America. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, even if sourced that info is misleading. I invite you to read more about Mexico and Central America. It is very risky to say that culturally, historically Mexico is in CA. That is completely wrong. Mexicans and Central Americans are not the same and even if we share a language, our cultures are very different. I invite you to read the debate about it above, in this same page. I don't think a person would ask "then where is Mexico?" just based in that section, because there is whole article to explain where it is. I don't think it is necessary, it is about what NA means to different people. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just can't believe you reverted the info. That is misleading and even if informal common usage, most of the people of the US and Canada know that Mexico is not part of Central America. That is misleading. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)-

Mmh ok, I did not change a quotation. I deleted the " ". However, right now I just removed the info after the first period. Remember it is about the usage of NA, not about the usage of the other terms. It is enough to explain that NA is also used to mean Canada and US only. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the comments regarding Central and South America; I simply explained why they add legitimate context. I'd just like to point out, Alex, that by my count you're somewhere around 5RR at this point, so I recommend that you take a break from the edit warring. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh: does this mean that this usage information is appropriate for the Central America article? It is, after all, a part of the Americas. If so, it should probably be added. Corticopia 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the love of the gods, can editors please source these other meanings and usage for the term 'North America'? This has been repeatedly asked. Please note that there are two reputable sources above -- Fowler's and Oxford -- which say essentially the same thing; three if you include the online reference. And these are the ones provided. The current edition is effectively a paraphrase and is somewhat acceptable. Until other sources are provided, however, I favour cited information to heresay -- more information rather than less. Corticopia 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And there is a lot of sources indicating that Mexico is not frequently included in CA. That Mexico is not geopolitically part of CA. That SOME geographers consider that part of southeastern Mexico in physically in CA (in Encyclopaedia Britannica)... most of the sources don't include Mexico in CA. So... that does not count? What about neutrality? The current edit says clearly that in english the term NA also is used to describe the US and Canada only. It is enough and very informative, since, oh god, we are talking about its usage. Period. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it counts -- that's not the point. I don't want really want to reopen the 'regions of America(s)' can-of-worms, but I am simply asking for other authoritative citations that indicate the other meanings of 'North America' alluded to in these discussions, and above and beyond what is already sourced in the article. If these other meanings are common, they shouldn't be difficult to cite. Corticopia 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's see where we are at this point. Here is the diff between Corticopia's last version and Alex's last edit:

• In English, "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. Countries to the south of the United States are described as being in Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) or South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.)."
• In English, "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together."

The argument is about whether the additional contextual information about Central and South America should be included. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you make it look that my reason to object that sentence is that I felt "offended". That is so false and wrong. I already explained my reasons above. What I find offensive is that you ignore them and simplify the whole thing my saying that I felt offended. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I see you edited your own comment. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• While the briefer versions are somewhat acceptable, I believe the former provides added context (as Jim indicated) and should be included; all the paraphrases or (re)quotations to this point have not captured the essence of the citation previously removed. And remember that more than one such source has been presented: if there are other uses for the term, they should be added and referenced. Thus far (above and beyond the notion of the North American 'continent', which noone denies ... other than those who consider America to be just one continent), they really haven't been cited. Corticopia 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I already explained my arguements. First, it is a small subsection about the usage of the term North America, why include CA or SA? It is irrelevant. Second, saying that Mexico is in CA is also misleading, given the abundant sources indicating that geopolitically Mexico is not in CA and that, only some geographers include part of the southeastern portion of Mexico in CA. It is even indicated in this article! For the sake of accuracy and neutrality, we should quote what is important: NA also means the US and Canada only. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The second source says NOTHING about "mostly":

North America--Includes Canada, the United States, Mexico, Central America, and the islands of the Caribbean Sea. Sometimes excludes Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

Therefore, I believe it resolves all the arguments to mention that "mostly" does not pertain to American English. I will go do that. 24.107.194.216 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it totally lost on you people who keep reverting the sentence so that it is untrue nonsense that both Fowlers AND the Oxford reference are ABOUT British English? The whole reason this argument exists is that (as the THIRD reference shows) "mostly" is NOT true about American English. Let me know when you take your heads out. 68.89.149.2 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This article quotes a book about British English as though it refers to the English language in general. Why is it wrong to point out that the quote is about British English? 68.89.149.2 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

English speakers outside North America usually called the United States America and it's inhabitants Americans. (So does everyone in the United States from the President downwards.) -- New Sentence -- The term North America is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. The problem is that you're trying to combine these sentences when the source doesn't suggest you should (if it meant to imply English speakers outside the States in the second sentence, it would've used an appropriate pronoun - that's just uncontraversial basic grammar. And apart from the edits being introduced to suggest North America = Canada+States not being consistant with the source, they're also false. Without either leg to stand on, they get reverted. WilyD 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, I'm not (trying to combine). BTW, I can't follow your logic. 68.89.149.2 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to combine this part English speakers outside North America of the first sentence with the second sentence The term North America is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together is what leads to the erroneous edits that North America = Canada+States is specificly excluded in American English, or a specific feature of British English (neither of which are supported by the source, or true) WilyD 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources mention anything about specific English dialects/varieties and usage: to guess that they do is rather iaccurate. True: Oxford and Fowler's are rooted in British English but deal with other varieties of English too (i.e., there are more than just American and British), as a glance at other entries on the scanned pages will reveal this (e.g., AmE, etc.). Perhaps you should ... place your head back in? And the issue (more to point) is that citations indicating these notions were removed even though they were allegedly 'checked'. Feel free to propose an agreeable paraphrase, though. :) Corticopia 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for venting. Second, I'm well aware that there are more than two dialects/varieties of English. It seems that Fowler's specifically states which English he is talking about when he is not talking about British English. When I first found this article, I didn't understand why Alex's corrections kept getting reverted. After seeing the scanned page from Fowler's, I realized that some people were insisting on quoting it even though taking it out of the context of British English makes it untrue. I've tried to update it several times, but my updates have been reverted for, what are obviously, specious reasons. I've tried adding "In the UK" and you improved that when you changed it to something like "In British English." It's obviously not the case that it's mostly used that way in American English, so I've tried "In some Englishes excluding American English." Any of these are good enough for me. At this point, I'm not certain what wouldn't get reverted anyway. 68.89.149.2 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing specious at all: you are making unsourced assumptions. Fowler's does not specifically indicate what variety of English (in terms of the reference) is being dealt with, and the volume explicitly deals with varieties of English beyond British English. I removed my addition of 'British English' precisely because it is unqualified and not obvious. Please note that the Fowler's citation was added long ago, edit-warred, then erroneously matched with the statement below it about 'subcontinents'; it was then 'checked' by the offending editor and removed (claiming the citation's existence to be false), and scanned/readded by me upon checking that the reference WAS valid. Anyhow: nothing is obvious, though WilyD's argument does make sense. I LONG for another citation that specifically indicates prevalence of usage; until then, try a paraphrase. Corticopia 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain what WilyD is trying to say then. Contrary to his assumptions, I am NOT trying to combine anything that is already there. As I've already stated, I'm trying to correct misinformation that is there. Contrary to what you've written above, it is obvious that Fowler (writing approximately 100 years ago at Oxford) is discussing British English except where he explicitly states otherwise. BTW, I loved his book The King's English which does a wonderful job of explaining things that we just don't do in America, such as differentiating between "will" and "shall" by person. Have you considered checking American dictionaries for the usage of "North America" in American English? BTW, contrary to WilyD, the third source remarks that "North America" is sometimes used to mean Canada and the United States, which is NOT the same as mostly. As the Fowler quotation currently appears in this article, it implies that in any variety of English, "North America" is mostly used to mean Cananda and the United States. That claim is patently false, as shown by the quote from the third reference which I pasted in above. 68.89.149.2 00:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My quote is a word for word copy of the scanned source provided on this talk page - disputing it is unproductive, since any editor can verify it's accuracy. It is obvious is a phrase that will tip off editors to Here comes original research. While it may seem obvious to you he means this, it's not obvious from the text or context, and it suffers the problem of not being true - making it less convincing. What seems obvious to me is that where dialect of English is not specified, the writer refers to all dialects simultaneously (and really, they're very similar). WilyD 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please, cite any evidence that your quotation holds for American English. Why do you keep on insisting that what I claim is "not true"? 24.107.194.216 03:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation scanned above is evidence that the quotation holds for American English. I'm not sure how to make it clearer that American English is a kind of English ... WilyD 14:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is EXACTLY what makes the quotation as used misleading! Yes, American English is a kind of English. However, "North America" almost NEVER means just the U.S. and Canada in American English. Why must WP bow to your misunderstanding? 24.107.194.216 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's verifiable, as in the source above, and North America is used to mean the States+Canada all the time in American English (I'm not sure mostly is the case, but commonly certainly is, and I'll defer to a reputable source over my OR or your OR.) WilyD 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet you cite nothing other than something written 100 years ago about British English! At least you backed down from mostly to commonly, which while more likely is still hard to swallow without a citation. 68.89.149.2 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet there's exactly zero evidence it's about British English. WilyD 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why the first sentence found at Fowler's_Modern_English_Usage is "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, often referred to simply as Fowler's Modern English Usage, or Fowler, is a style guide to British English usage, authored by Henry W. Fowler." Thanks for the bellylaugh WilyD! Or are you gonna go over there and "fix" that article for them? Sheesh! 68.89.149.2 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From a Rutgers University web site about style guides, a sentence specifically about Fowler "Yanks may find this classic work unsuitable because of its focus on British English, and much of it has been outdated in the eight decades since its first edition's completion." 68.89.149.2 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2004 Fowler's volume was (obviously) not written 100 years ago, heavily refactored by its editor, and explicitly indicates (publisher cover information; emphasis added): "It gives a clear and authoritative picture of the English we use, and elucidates many scores of usage questions .... It gives in-depth coverage of both British and American English with reference to the English of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. The volume includes wide-ranging examples of usage from a broad selection of newspapers, journals, and books from across the globe, and features illustrative quotations ..."

Since there is NO qualification of specific dialect in the "America" entry (except in the first sentence of the entry), it would be supposition to assume this. Thus, I believe issues regarding the dialect/variety of note are resolved. And, also note that the Oxford reference cited corroborates the notions in Fowler's. The online reference can be accounted for through a paraphrase statement. Corticopia 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

THEY'RE BOTH FROM OXFORD! Do you know where Oxford is? Do you know what Oxford is? Do you have any AMERICAN source that makes that ludicrous claim about American English? 68.89.149.2 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, really? Why don't you present an 'American' source. Until then, stop waisting our time, stop screaming, and discuss items civilly; otherwise, you'll be ignored. Corticopia 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Two of the three major American dictionaries are available on line. The American Heritage [12] states that "North America" is used in American English to mean "The northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea, the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland." Merrium-Webster [13]is more cryptic, "continent of the western hemisphere NW of South America bounded by Atlantic, Arctic, & Pacific oceans area 9,361,791 square miles (24,247,039 square kilometers)." As you can verify for yourselves, neither one mentions "the U.S. and Canada" because that usage is UNKNOWN in written American English. In spoken American English, it's understood to be a Briticism. No, I don't expect you to change your minds. You both appear to be too busy being pretending you know something you don't. Yath and Alex have brought all this up before. (Oh, I love what WP did with my links!) 24.107.194.216 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you happen to miss all of the content above the article section about usage, or in the discussions above? There's no denying what various English publications define 'North America' as being -- I concur. That's not the point: sources provided indicate that the term is used differently than prescribed in dictionaries. Even the third online source provided (which was also removed by Alex) indicates North America is 'sometimes' used to refer to just the US and Canada (or more precisely, excluding other constituents) ... and without distinguishing between American/British English. Perhaps it is more used as an analog of Anglo-America or to distinguish from, say, Middle America. Again, feel free to paraphrase the contents of that section. Regardless, since you appear to be blathering anonymously and rather uncivilly, I am 'too busy' to continue this discussion. Corticopia 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You've just said that you don't know what a dictionary is! Hmmm, maybe there shouldn't be any notes about usage in the article since that information should be in the Wiktionary instead? Um, American dictionaries have been descriptive, not prescriptive, for decades. Yes, the third source is talking about those non-American Englishes when it says "sometimes," but you just must get your way, I see. If only you were too busy to keep reverting corrections to maintain the error! 24.107.194.216 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not only put words in other editor's mouths but have a predilection for adding incorrect content without basis and making original assessments: the third reference does not say non-American, just as the other references do not. You and some other editors also seem to not know what a paraphrase is. Oh: Flattery will get you nowhere. This discussion is ended. Corticopia 05:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's understood to be a Briticism, provide a source. Otherwise, we'll need to deal with the fact that American English and British English are the same language (English) and that sources that refer to English refer to both unless otherwise qualified. Your argument becomes less credible when it's also transparently false. In North America, we use North America as half of the Americas (the other half being South America) - here North American extends north from either the Panama Canal, or the Panama Colombia border - this may vary. But we also use North America in speech and writing as a contrast to Latin America in which case it's just Canada and the States (well, plus Bermuda, Greenland St. Mickey et al). WilyD 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you could provide a cite that's not from England for your claim that "North America" is used in North America to mean just the U.S. and Canada. All the reference materials that are from the U.S. show no awareness of such usage. 68.89.149.2 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends - I mean, we can easily discover that it's true through OR (i.e. [14]) and I don't understand why it matters whether a citation is English or not - the Brits speak the same language we do in North America. WilyD 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you admitting that no reliable sources are available to back you up? If you were correct, the terms "British English" and "American English" would not exist, btw. One iteams web site is not evidence that "North America" is mostly used the way you claim, which is what the whole dispute is about. Given that the "i" in iteams stands for "international," there's no reason to believe that that web site was written in American English. I don't understand why you are against appropriately qualifying the quotation. 68.89.149.2 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that Fowler's Modern English Usage backs this up, as has been shown here a dozen times or more. I'm against qualifing the above quotation because it's groundless to do so. American English and British English are the same language - I'm not sure how one can claim otherwise. They're different dialects, but the reference is Fowler's Modern English Usage not Fowler's Modern British English Usage. WilyD 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to the Old Tables?

This entry used to list the states and territories by region: One table for Northern America, one for Central America, and one for the Caribbean. But now there's only one table listing all the states and territories? Why this change? I liked the three-table organization better. That looked neater and it address the controversy over listing these three regions as one continent of "North America". Inkan1969 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the short answer is We talked about it a lot, and decided this was the fairest, least contraversial way to list it. It saves us the constant barrage of Mexicans moving Mexico to Northern America and endless arguments about whether Mexico's in Central America (since the answer is sometimes, sometimes not). Plus, there's no real compelling reason to use the table. WilyD 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WilyD. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago had joined NAFTA as they originally had planned, I wonder how that would have changed arguments here. :-) CaribDigita 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't begin to imagine that it'd have the slightest effect. AFAIK, there's been no change in the use of North America(n) since I was born, and I predate NAFTA. WilyD 01:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Continent

North and South America are viewed differently across the globe, not the terms North America and South America, but the concepts. This should be noted in the article. There is no such thing as a relatively uncommon viewpoint, if we have a reliable source that

• The word Continent in English comes with the inherent value that there are seven - to the point where I can cite a dictionary that says there are seven continents as part of the definition of the word. The confusion your talking about is just an issue of inexact translation, not one of facts. WilyD 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Continent

This is a dispute about the nature of North and South America, should it be mentioned that in some parts of the world they are considered a single continent?21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• North and South America are considered in a large part of the globe as a single continent, this should be noted in the article.Chico 21:16, 20 February 2007(UTC)

Comments

• That simply isn't true. The problem is that the nuance of continent is lost in translation. North America and South America may be a single Continente, but that word isn't identical to Continent. Exact translations of words are impossible - strictly impossible. The issue is not one of geography or politics, but stricly one of semantics. And the nuances of Spanish words cannot be used to infer the nuance of English words, because translations are rough. WilyD 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• That's an interesting take on it, WilyD; I hadn't considered that. Anyway, I'm adding a note here under "Comments", because I don't agree that there is a dispute, simply a misunderstanding. I've added some comments below to supplement the note I sent to User talk:Chicocvenancio yesterday. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Continent

Hi, Chico. The issue is that some Latin American countries consider the Americas to be a single "super-continent", with North America and South America being "sub-continents". This view is noted in the article under North America#Usage of the term, but the main body of the article presents the view of the English speaking world. In the same way, es:América del Norte and pt:América do Norte present the common view among Spanish and Portuguese speakers, describing North America as a subcontinent of the Americas, and not as a standalone continent. As I explained on your talk page, all reliable sources in the English-speaking world define North America and South American as being individual continents:

• Britannica: "Continent: one of the larger continuous masses of land, namely, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia, listed in order of size. (Europe and Asia are sometimes considered a single continent, Eurasia.)"
• Encarta: "A continent is distinguished from an island or a peninsula not merely by greater size but also by geological structure and development (see below). The continents, in order of size, are Eurasia (conventionally regarded as the two continents of Europe, individually the second smallest, and Asia), Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia."
• Dictionary definition: "one of the main landmasses of the globe, usually reckoned as seven in number (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica)."

What this boils down to is that each version of Wikipedia presents the views of native speakers of that language. In this sense, en.wikipedia.org is doing the same thing as es.wikipedia.org and pt.wikipedia.org. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing much of a dispute here; either sources to the effect of North & South American being considered one continent can be found, presented, and cited in the article or it can't. If the assertion is true, source it reliably, and we would be remiss in not making mention of it. siafu 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. I don't think a lot of people know that in other parts of the world they are considered one continent (I didn't). Like siafu said, put one sentence noting the cultural differences and source it. Coreydaj 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done; see the "Usage" section, which notes the different usage in Latin America. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

North America fork

I encourage editors involved in this discussion to comment and weigh on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of this article. Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "fork". There are several geographic models applied to the Americas. One of them are the one you like: Northern America, Middle America and South America. The article North America (Americas) is part of the geographic model also very popular in the world: North, Central, Caribbean and South America.

If you are asking for the deletion of this article, then the article "Middle America (Americas)" should also be deleted and merged into "North America", because the region is part of the North American continent.

Finally as you already said in the debate there, you are not denying the model exists, just that you consider that the references are not enough. So, perhaps a tag to ask for more references would have been enough.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and finally, I just want to warn the editors that Corticopia is E Pluribus Anthony, Cogito Ergo Sumo and the anonimous IP user that once used to be against the alphabetization of the table of countries and territories. If any of you have doubts about it, please read this [15]. You may call it a "ad hominem" attack, but it is very important that everybody knows this, because we already had an intense debate with you in the past. Finally, I encourage everybody to vote based in what they believe. This is comment is nothing but information you should know. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than being a veiled ad hominem argument (and ironic that it is coming from someone who has admitted to using sockpuppets to report edit-warring while not self-reporting), there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America (numerous definitions provided) are well sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. The sources in North America (Americas) do not support the content in that article, and a read of those sources will reveal that. Regardless, if necessary, applicable content can be added to this article instead of forking and conflating. Regarding other notions, I can't comment -- I encourage everybody to vote not just on what they believe, but in accordance with the verifiable 'truth'. Corticopia 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to you, "1 of the 3 sources", backs the information on the article. As I already said, your nomination was hasty, because all you could have done is only to ask for more sources. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so -- my nomination comments clearly summarize the situation. North America may be a subcontinent (which also includes the West Indies and land bridge of Central America), but it is nowhere defined in your sources as a region requiring a separate article. It deserves to be deleted/redirected and (if necessary) this article updated instead. Corticopia 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing all the debate, that essay of yours seems a little weird. For instance, Mexico is in southern North America - the geographic centre of North America is in one of the Dakotas - Mexico is easily in the southern third of the continent, maybe quarter. The rest, I dunno, but it's usually best not to draw too much judgement from hard-headed editors of political (somehow) articles. WilyD 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the arguments presented here provide any clear reason why there need to be two articles on the same subject. siafu 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ...

Thanks to those who weighed in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete review of North America (region)

Administrator took a dubious decision. The result should have been no concensus, due to the fact that the votes were clearly divided. This deleted article was about the region of the Americas named "North America". All of the other regions within the Americas under the various geographical models to divide it, have their own article: Middle America (Americas), Central America, Northern America, Caribbean and South America. Please, read carefully the AfD page and the reasons provided to undelete the article. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, he did not -- an apparent consensus of 65% supported the admin action. Comments at AfD. Corticopia 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Resources

I deeply regret WiliD's reversion of my changes, which he labeled "highly dubious" in spite of the fact that they were referenced in Talk:Mexico. I didn't know they had been archived (Archive 2) and he didn't bother to look for them on the archives. So, to support my claim, I will simply copy verbatim what was written there. Even if there are more references than what are needed to support my claim, the additional references will help improve the quality of this article should a user decide to incorporate some of the information that was reported.

Like I had told Corticopia I would do, I made a review of a small number of encyclopedias in my university's library and online, and here's what I found:

• Wordlmark Encyclopedia of the Nations (2001)

• Mexico: located on the North American continent
• No entry for Central America (after all this is an encyclopedia of nations not continents or regions), but Mexico is implicitly excluded from Central America in that the entries for the Central American countries explicitly state that they are Central American republics, whereas that of Mexico doesn't.

• Encyclopedia of the World's Nations (2002)

• Mexico: located on the North American continent
• No entry for Central America (same as above), but Mexico implicitly excluded from CA. The entry for Guatemala reads: "Guatemala is located in Central America... it is the third largest nation in Central America" (i.e. after Nicaragua and Honduras, Mexico excluded).

• World Geographical Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill (1995)

• Mexico: located between the United States and Central America (explicit exclusion from Central America)
• Latin American entry states that Central America geographically could include Mexico by considering the Gulf of Mexico a "Mediterranean Sea" but that the conventional definition of Central America refers only to that hinge that joins the North American and South American plates, and therefore Mexico is not included in Central America. (Tectonic plates are used then for the "conventional definition").

• World Geography encyclopedia is made up of 19 volumes of the different regions of the world. There is no volume on North America, but separate volumes for the US and Canada. Mexico is included in the Central American volume, as part of the "Central American arc" (sic)
• Columbia Gazetteer of the World

• Mexico: located in southern North America
• Central America: located in the southernmost region of North America, geographically CA starts at the isthmus of Tehuantepec, but it is composed of 7 republics (i.e. Mexico is excluded).
• North America: includes all of the mainland and related offshore island lying N of the isthmus of Panama. Distinguishes between "Anglo-America" (Canada+US, with (largely) British/English roots) and "Middle America", the latter is composed of Mexico+republics of Central America+Caribbean.

• Oxford Dictionary of the World (1999)

• Central America: "the narrow strip of land to the south of Mexico linking North America and South America and including Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa rica, and Panama". This implicitly states that North America is Mex+US+Canada.
• Mexico: "country in North America"
• North America: "northern half of the American landmass, connected to South America by the isthmus of Panama..." (i.e. all-inclusive definition of North America). The rest of the entry briefly elaborates on US, Canada and Mexico, but only mentions Central America as Mexico's "...Central American neighbors to the south". This means that Central America is a region within North America to which Mexico does not belong.

• Merriam-Webster Dictionary [16]

• Mexico: located in southern North America
• Central America: the narrow southern portion of North America connecting with South America and extending from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the Isthmus of Panama OR the republics of the Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Belize
• North America: continent of the western hemisphere NW of South America

• Britannica (not the online version, but the paper version)

• Mexico:federal republic located in North America.
• North America: From Alaska to Panama. The introduction reads: "This article treats the physical an human geography of North America... for discussion of individual countries of the continent see the articles CANADA, MEXICO and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Other North American countries are treated in articles on regions under the titles CENTRAL AMERICA and WEST INDIES" [caps not mine, I am not shouting, that is the way Britannica writes it). This means that Central America is a region within North America to which Mexico does not belong.

• Hispánica (in Spanish, 1992)

• Mexico: (a very confusing long introduction) ...el país más poblado de habla española, México, extiende por América del norte y central (sic). I assume it implies it stretches over North and Central America, however this would have been written as "México se extiende". Afterwards it states that el istmo de Tehuantepec... constituye para la mayoría de los geógrafos el límite entre América del norte y América central.
• No entries for North America or South America, but one for America (the Americas). That is, Hispánica follows the Spanish convention in which América (i.e. the Americas) is a single continent, and in which North and South America are geographical subregions or subcontinents but not 2 separate continents. As such, in the "América" entry, the definitions of "Norteamérica", "Sudamérica" and "América central" are purely geographical and not geopolitical: "Tradicionalmente se distinguen dos grandes conjuntos territoriales, los subcontinentes norteamericano y sudamericao, unidos por una serie de istmos que componen la América central (Tehuantepec, Guatemala, Nicaragua y Panamá) y por el conjunto de archipiélagos del mar Caribe". Central America is thus defined as a "series of isthmuses" that "includes Tehuantepec", which then heps explain the introduction on the entry about Mexico.

• Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (I am translating from Catalan, if you are fluent in Catalan, follow the link) [17]

• Mexico: "country of North America"
• North America: I think it does an excellent explanation on the possible definitions of this word:

• "subcontinent formed by the northernmost part of the Americas, [the area] north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec"(i.e. geographical definition)..."
• "...or if we follow a geophysiographical (sic) definition, [it refers to the area] north of the Trans-Mexican volcanic belt.
• "...conventionally [lit. practically] the limit between North America and Central America is the border between Mexico and [the countries of] Guatemala and Belize..."
• A fourth additional definition was used in the 1970 version of the encyclopedia. I assume they eliminated this alternative definition given the economical shift produced in the 1990's in which Mexico has become economically, and arguably politically, integrated with its northern neighbors. The definition was: "...following economical, political and cultural criteria, North America [when] used [only] in opposition to Latin America, refers to the regions north of Rio Grande and excluding the Caribbean islands". Arguably, the UN scheme might follow a similar logic when it separates "Northern" America (compare with Anglo-America), from Latin America/Caribbean or from the region of 'Central America (including Mexico) and the Caribbean'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dúnadan (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

• • Uhm - I cannot help but notice that none of these entries say what you added to the article - i.e. none of the English languages references refer to North America as a subcontinent, or the Americas as a continent... WilyD 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are right about Americas as a single continent, no English reference claims that. But I had already deleted that claim from the article when I edited it! Please note that all but two English language references contrast between North America and Central America and include Mexico in the former,. That is, a North American "subregion" is implicitly defined. My changes were motivated by the petitions made by several editors to include some information that was in the recently deleted "North America (Americas)" article in which an alternative definition of a subregion was provided. As you can see in the above references, it is true that even in the English language North America is [occasionally] used to refer to Can+US+Mex. --theDúnadan 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

...For clarity: the sources above generally indicate NA is a continent and perhaps a subcontinent(e) (e.g., ES Encarta/Enc Catalana indicates that part of Mexico, Canada, US... are in NA subcontinente), but NONE refer to it explicitly as a 'region'/'subregion', do they? CA is unambiguously a region and, generally, a southerly one of NA. Maybe we should merely report verbatim (succinctly) what the non-English sources say without excessive interpretation: e.g., 'in Spanish, NA is a constituent (subcontinente) of America.' Please don't mistake this as a challenge to incorporate other points of view (see here), but implicit assertions/interpretations -- given rigmaroles about the topic here and elsewhere -- cannot possibly hold water here. Corticopia 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am trying to incorporate a POV assertion, or a rigmarole (i.e. a confused and meaningless statement) when trying to state that North America is indeed used (even if occasionally) in contrast to Central America? Do you really have to be that aggressive in your comments? Do you ever assume good faith? Even if you wish not to use the word region, the sources do speak about the existence such an "entity" in English that contains Can+US+Mex. Pick the term that you think more accurately defines this "entity". --theDúnadan 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that -- what I am saying is that you need to source your assertions and attribute them to reliable sources in accordance with Wp policies. This article and related ones have succumbed to edit-warring and prior reframing/removal of information before -- the rigmarole -- and adding content without sources or because something is implicit (which both I and likely WilyD are concerned about) is frankly insufficient.

Also inconsistent with Wp norms is your 'confused and meaningless' diatribe above -- provocative and uncalled for (particularly from an admin). Tone it down. And calling into question my comments above, after I've tried to incorporate/highlight this content equitably -- is arguably a personal attack and won't be tolerated. If you explode again as you did above, you will receive due attention or none at all. And if you want to comment further regarding this, use my talk page. Corticopia 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about equity as well and I do not endorse a single particular version; given my history of contributions and our history debating together on similar subjects, you can at least attest that I've always tried to mediate between you and Alex regarding this sensitive issue in many articles; and of course mediating means that I sometimes do not fully agree with your point of view or with your interpretations. You are disregarding the above sources that implicitly or even explicitly say that North America limits Central America here or there, which is an obvious and explicit contrast of two entities. I don't see it as a rigmarole, nor as a meaningless and confused diatribe. --theDúnadan 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) By the way, I agree with the most recent version in which you defined the "entity" as a "constituency".

None of the English language references above refer to Central America as anything but North American - i.e. they follow usual English usage, where Central America is part of North America ... WilyD 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

They do follow the English usage in that Central America is part of the North American continent. But they distinguish that region or entity (i.e. Central America) from a separate northern region or entity that contains Mexico and its northern neighbors, usually referred to simply as "North America" as well. I will research on that and provide a more comprehensive set of references in the future. --theDúnadan 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• yeah, I agee with this. North America + South America = the Americas and North America + Latin America = the Americas are the two standard english usages. Mexico may be gray-ish, but I don't think that's widely perceived in English, and none of those references seem to support North America with Mexico but not Costa Rica as an English language usage. WilyD 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In colloquial usage, at least here in the US (or, I should probably say, here in the southern states of the US) Mexico is commonly reckoned as a country within this region or entity of North America. I lived in Canada for a while, and I do acknowledge the fact that this "perception" is not as "widely perceived" there as it is in the US. That is why I chose the qualifier "occasionally" in the article, and not "widely". I don't think I ever used the word "widely" in this discussion either. If I did, I was wrong, at least wrong when referring to the perceptions of what constitutes North America vis-a-vis Central America outside the US. --theDúnadan 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes: FWIW, I would think this generally means that the smaller 'entity' still refers to the continent (or sub...): only its scope and definition may differ among sources (always including some entities, while excluding others) -- e.g., Europe may refer to the entire continent or just the mainland, excluding the British/other isles. And then there's Australia (Tasmania, New Guinea ...). If one wants to call NA a region, note that this also varies -- e.g., 'North America' used in a manner akin to Northern or Anglo-America, as compared to Latin America). Corticopia 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WilyD, as promised here are some web pages that use the term North America either officially, informally or simply colloquially to refer exclusively to Can+US+Mexico (and some that use it to refer exclusively to Can+US+Mex+Bermuda+St. Pierre et Michelon):

• http://www.countryreports.org/map/northAmerica.aspx
• http://www.canadiancontent.net/profiles/north-america/
• http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engsupp.htm, [in all three North American countries]
• http://www.sice.oas.org/geograph/north/hinojosa2.pdf
• http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/
• http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/Comparisons-NACountries.htm
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-1.html
• http://www.1uptravel.com/flags/northamerica.html
• http://www.skyscanner.net/flights-to/n/cheap-flights-to-countries-in-north_america.html?ocy=us
• http://www.asu.edu/news/stories/200702/20070209_NACTS.htm [the three North American countries]
• http://www.oecd.org usually groups Mex+Can+US as "North America" even when comparing data of NA vis-a-vis Latin or South America, but of course, no other Central or Latin American country is a member of the OECD...so arguably they had "no other choice".
• http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naifr02c.pdf
• http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/07/q1/80942.htm This one says: "North America -- the three countries of North America have a combined GDP of $15 trillion".
• http://fita.org/countries/na.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/world/northamerica/index.html Washington Post categorization of news of North America (US+Can+Mex) distinguished from news from Central America and South America.

More to come...

Arguably, based on the above, North America is used, even if only informally, to refer to US+Can+Mex in English as well.

--theDúnadan 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what's funny? I used the American University Center for North American Studies as a source for the article North America (Americas)... a source that was "tagged" as "no reliable"... as well as Duke's University Center for NA Studies... I found interesting how one source use the term "Continental North America", clearly distinguishing it from "North America", in that article meaning Can, US and Mex. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

North American Continent:

• North America - (Mex, Can and USA)
• Central America - (From Belize to Panama)

Gosh you keep on going with this thing? why is it so hard for some poeple to accept that Mexico is in North America and not in Central America, there's plenty of evidence that has already been said. Mexico is in North America, just deal with it. Supaman89 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think a single person is disputing that Mexico is in the North American continent. Any English speaker will tell you that it is - the contentious part is that the same speaker will tell you that Costa Rica is in the North American continent. WilyD 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have missed the point of what I was trying to prove, and I am a native English speaker that happens to live in an English speaking country.

Yes, there is a North American continent that includes Central America (and Costa Rica, as well as Mexico). But there is also an English usage of the term North America in which North America is distinguished from Central America, as a separate region or entity. The sources above clearly show that... especially the one of the US government in which the author states: "North America, the three countries of North America have a combined GDP of ...".

This whole argument started because I added, in the section "Usage of the Term", a phrase that says that the usage of NA as Can+US+Mexico exclusively, is also common in the English speaking world and not restricted to Ibero America. Like I said, even here in the US, Mexico is reckoned as a North American country whereas Costa Rica is considered a Central American country. Categorizations, such as that of Washington Post, and many others [see above] show precisely that. I am not contending against the geographical definition of the North American continent. I am simply saying that the usage of the term, besides referring solely to the US and Canada, is also [widely] used [at least in the US] to refer solely to the US, Canada and Mexico.

--theDúnadan 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The problems are that common is a judgement that looks unlikely - and the North America that doesn't include Central America is typically vauge, and you're left to define it through inference. This sentence Like I said, even here in the US, Mexico is reckoned as a North American country whereas Costa Rica is considered a Central American country. is comparing apples and oranges. This is like saying A Mallard is reckoned as a duck, whereas an Wood Duck is reckoned as a bird - this doesn't help, because a Wood Duck is also a Duck ...

All in all, it's easy to show that Mexico is in North America the continent, it's not easy to show its in the vague nebulous region with any sort of regularity, and it's certainly impossible to reckon how commonly this is done. When you not talking about the continent this is rarely explicit, and rarely well defined. WilyD 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat some of my arguments.

• While I personally claim that the usage of the term is common, at least from my perspective as a resident of the US, I chose the qualifier "occasionally" in the article. This qualifier accurately portray sthat there are [some] sources (as the above), in which what I claim is true. While I cannot prove its commonality (I would engage in OR), I can say it is used, albeit occasionally, and I can prove it is used.
• Secondly, if you had read the sources, especially those of academic and government institutions, you'd see that the usage is far from vague and far from being a "vague nebulous region": in all sources the three countries are grouped as the only North American countries [and sometimes St. Pierre and Michelon and Bermuda are included, but they are not sovereign independent nations]. How can it be vague?
• Thirdly, I am referring to usage not to geographical definitions. Geographically North America extends all the way to Panama. Physiograpically it extends all the way to the isthmus of Tehuantepec (which in any case will group the three countries).
• If I am comparing apples and oranges, then the usage of North America as US and Canada but not Costa Rica is also wrong, because Costa Rica is also North America, isn't it? Like I said, I am referring to usage, not to geographical definitions. My comparison is as valid as that of the "common" English usage of only US and Canada.

--theDúnadan 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The North American Continent is sub-divided into different regions, the 3 most commons ones are the North American Region (Mex, Can and USA), Central America (From Belize to Panama) and the Caribbean, as simple as that, now some people may not like it, some people may try to deny it, but in the end, it is true. Supaman89 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Norteamérica -- subcontinente?

I'm getting a bit confused about this issue. It's fine for us to note the Latin American usage -- that Norteamérica is considered to be a subcontinente of the continente of América. es:América del Norte and pt:América do Norte don't even go that far in acknowledging different views; in the Spanish and Portuguese articles, North America is described as a subcontinent of the continent of America, with no acknowledgement that this is not the model used in the English speaking world. And I'm fine with that -- every version of Wikipedia reflects the world view of native speakers of that language, and of reliable sources in that language. And all English language reliable sources consider North America to be a continent, distinct from South America. It may very well be that a soccer organization with most of its members in Latin America might slip into the Spanish-language view that North and South America are a single continent, but that really can't be considered to be a reliable source for the assertion that this usage is at all typical in English. The word occasionally as used by User:Jcmenal implies that this usage is typical in English. That's simply not the case. English-language reliable sources (Britannica, Encarta, Dictionary definitions) are quite clear about this -- North America is a distinct continent, not a subcontinent of America. We've acknowledged in this article that Spanish and Portuguese speakers use a different model -- but it's incorrect and misleading to assert that this usage is typical in English. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I see your point. That's exactly why Dúnadan and Corticopia deleted the references to "subcontinente" or "region", and chose instead "constituent of", because Dúnadan provided several sources indicating that in English, the term North America is also used meaning Can, US and Mexico. There are plenty of sources about this usage. Take a look at the debate above. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This logic can also be applied to the content for South America, where recent edits (mea culpa?) assert that it is sometimes referred to as a subcontinent of the Americas -- definitely a subcontinente in Spanish. Have any been provided in English to corroborate this? If not, that article should also be revised appropriately. Corticopia 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're getting at, Alex; thanks for that explanation. The problem with that phrasing is that it mashes together two completely different ideas in a very confusing way:

1. The term "North America" is sometimes used as shorthand for the three NAFTA countries, omitting Central America entirely;
2. "North America" is considered to be a region (constituent, subcontinente) of the continent of the Americas.

Point #1 is true. Depending on context, a Canadian or American might say "North America" when he means (1) the continent of North America, as far south as the Panama Canal; (2) the three NAFTA countries; or (3) just Canada and the United States. Point #2, on the other hand, refers to a Latin American world-view that isn't recognized by English-language reliable sources. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point again. May I suggest adding a third separate line in the usage of NA? This would be about the usage of NA meaning Can, US and Mex. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that. I was just trying to take out that small inaccuracy about that "North America as a subcontinent" model being recognized in English. I have some nagging doubts about whether any of these colloquial usages are encyclopedic, but if the consensus is to include them, I have no objection to breaking out those two ideas into separate sentences. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reliably source any additions (i.e., please provide a source saying that NA means NAFTA or its constituents); relatedly, I will relent regarding the CA blurb in the article text for now. Corticopia 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed two or three of the sources I provided above are either NAFTA or NAFTA+Security Partnership (NAFTA "Plus") and they do refer to NA as NAFTA or its constituents. --theDúnadan 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on Alex's comments above, and this followup from Juan Carlos (Jcmenal), I've taken out the reference to the English-speaking world and tightened up this usage note to clarify that it only refers to the "North America as a subcontinent of the Americas" usage in Latin America. Juan Carlos's reference is from a soccer organization, and it simply refers to the North American "zone". I can understand that a Spanish speaker might interpret this as comparable to the Spanish-language understanding of North America as a subcontinent, but it's not at all comparable. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where I mentioned and edited that North America is considered a Subcontinent, Region OR Zone bt some English-speaking nations. The football organization that you mentioned uses 3 ZONES, North America (Mexico included), Central America, and the Caribbean (Guyana, Surinam and French Guiana included). The Caribbean English-speaking nations consider Mexico as part of North America, is their USAGE. JC 11:10, 19 March 2007 (PST)

Again, if you read this entire section from the beginning to the end, you'll see that I didn't miss it; it's just a completely different point. The bullet point in question here is very narrowly focused: In Latin America, people consider North America to be a subcontinent of the continent of the Americas. The question about what countries someone means when he says "North America" is a completely different issue. As I said above to Alex, I agree completely that a person might say "North America" to mean many different groups of countries. That group always contains Canada and the United States; it often (usually?) contains Mexico. And it may or may not contain the countries of Central America and the Caribbean. This is a completely separate usage issue, distinct from the "North America as a subcontinent of the Americas" usage issue. It's entirely reasonable to discuss this usage question. It's entirely unreasonable to confuse it with the completely different "subcontinent" usage point. And "zone" is a completely different question altogether; any organization can arbitrarily discuss a "zone" containing any random geographic group. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim, please read the section below, in which I argued (and provided sources) that North America (at least in the US) is used to refer to US+Can+Mex as a region or entity in ENGLISH, not only in Spanish. --theDúnadan 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion I had with Alex. We're talking about two entirely different points here. The phrase I keep removing is about North America being considered a "subcontinent" of the "continent" of the Americas. This specific concept does not exist in English. If you'd like to add some other point about the term "North America" referring to the NAFTA countries, please feel free to do so, but that's a completely different idea. I urge you to please read and understand all of the above discussion; please don't continue to revert this. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm gonna side with Jim on this. Why? The notion that NA in English (whatever it may be -- continent, subcontinent, region) is limited to just the three countries (perhaps more) is already addressed in the English usage note. I don't believe any of the sources above in Eng. assert that NA is explicitly a subcontinent, as the notion is relatively rare. However, the other perspective is also valid: perhaps we should merely substitute 'subcontinent' in the second note with any of 'constituent'/'entity'/'region'? Corticopia 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, the notion of NA limited to the three countries (plus dependencies) as a subcontinent is rare in English, but not as a region, and the sources below do show its usage as such. But I don't see the reason for your reversion, after all, the text, as it reads now, says that this region (in English) is called subcontinente in Spanish, not in English.--theDúnadan 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, once more. Please read this carefully. You are confusing two (or more?) completely different ideas. The concept of North America as a "subcontinent" (or whatever other word you choose to substitute) of the "continent" of the Americas simply does not exist in English. I've read your references, but this particular sentence in the Usage section was originally narrowly focused on the Latin American concept of North America as a subcontinent. You are utterly confusing the issue by attempting to blend in different concepts, as I discussed above with Alex -- and which he agreed with me about. I am not disputing your arguments. I am simply saying that they require a new sentence, a new point. This is not a problem for you. Just add a new sentence to the "Usage" section to make your point. But leave the "North America as a subcontinent" sentence focused on a single clear thought; don't try to combine multiple ideas that do not belong together. I honestly don't know how to explain myself any more clearly than this. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the usage of the term "North America" (in ENGLISH and SPANISH) that refers to the independent nations of Canada, US and Mexico (and sometimes the non-sovereign dependencies overseed by European powers of Bermuda, St. Pierre and Michelon and Greenland). This is the SAME concept, whether it is in English or Spanish. This is the same concept that is known as "subcontinente" in Spanish and "region" in English. But that does not preclude the fact that even in ENGLISH the word "subcontinent" is ALSO used:

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, declared that: this agreement [amongst the governments of the US, Mexico and Canada] on the definition of El Niño, La Niña or neutral phases, which allows for an objective diagnosis in a uniform way across the whole North American subcontinent, will better serve the public in general.
• UNESCO defined the Calakmul biosphere reserve in Mexico to be the reserve with the most important population of felines in the whole North-american subcontinent.
• the German-Mexican Cooperation GTZ states that the fauna and flora of the North American subcontinent here [in Mexico] meet the tropical elements of South America.

Of course, "North American subcontinent" is also used to refer only to the US and Canada,[18], but my point is that occasionally it also includes Mexico. The sentence, before you reverted it, said this concept is called "region" in English and "subcontinente" in Spanish, but even if some readers get confused, they still wouldn't be wrong, since the word "subcontinent" is also used in English, albeit uncommonly. Moreover, this section does not talk about geographical definitions (in English geography North America is a continent, not a subcontinent) but about usage (colloquial, if you will) of the term. However, let's leave the wording as it is right know. The first bullet talking about usage (US+Can and alternatively also Mex). The second bullet talking about Spanish usage exclusively.

--theDúnadan 06:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that was my point: deal with English usage in the first point, non-English in the second. I also added beforehand 'and other constituents' to the former to allow for possible wiggle room (e.g., including the countries of Central America but not the West Indies) without having to be explicit. :) Corticopia 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the "other constituencies" because if North America also means North America (continent) then what's the difference in usage from what the rest of the article is talking about? --theDúnadan 15:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that NA may be used to include more than US+Can (also+MX) but less than the broad definition as listed in the table etc. (e.g., any -- not all -- of CA, WI, Greenland, St. P&M, Bermuda ...) This would hark of the non-English note, without necessarily repeating it.  :) Corticopia 15:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the NOAA reference added also mentions earlier on "Three nations, on the same continent, agreeing on the index and definitions for such a significant climate feature as El Niño ..." Whether this is mindful of an American continent/NA subcontinent (which may both be true at the same time) or just represents different perspectives in the same source is a matter of debate. Corticopia 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also upon inspection at CountryReports, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Bermuda are also included in the 'world region' of NA, while Greenland (dependency of Denmark) is (oddly?) included in Europe. My edit regarding constituents seems more fitting now, doesn't it? Anyhow, though I do not disagree with the notion, I believe better sources should be added to corroborate that assertion. Corticopia 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think adding "other constituencies" is too general; one could argue that this "constituencies" could include Nicaragua (besides Mex+US+Can) and exclude the rest, which is not the case. I would just say, "alternatively it includes Mexico and occasionally St. Pierre and Michelon and/or Greenland". In this case we are specifying which constituencies could also be considered in this alternative usage of North America. Or, we could just say that usage refers to the independent nations of US+Can+Mex (in that the rest are non-sovereign countries).

--theDúnadan 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. The current -- um, prior -- version reads fine. The references should be replaced, though, with others that clearly support the assertion (as the NOAA and CountryReports references don't really) ... unless we re-add 'constiuencies' (or similar) and then add your refs above after them? Corticopia 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dúnadan. I just noticed that I left "or region" in there; it's probably redundant. By the way, did you notice that your first reference is a direct quote from a Mexican, and the other two articles are written by Mexicans? In all three cases, they are simply using the phrase "North American subcontinent" the way they would think of it in their native Spanish. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, they might be mistranslations. I hadn't noticed that. --theDúnadan 15:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was just reading a very interesting book on the Concise History of Mexico, written by Brian Hamnett[19], professor at the University of Essex (UK), and on the Preface of his book, he says... "Mexico, with a population of around 95 million, forms part of the North American sub-continent" (p. xii). I guess the "subcontinent" is not only a "mistranslation" from Spanish-speaking researchers, but a term used in English as well. --the Dúnadan 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From his publication history, it's reasonable to assume that he picked up that usage from his studies in Latin America. England, like all English-speaking countries, considers North and South America to be two separate continents. (Britannica - Continent; Britannica - North America) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it really reasonable that he picked it up? Or, as an authority in the matter, and being a reputable academic Englishman, he wouldn't pick up and publish terms that carelessly, (to the dismay of his British editors and publishing house), but truly considers it to be a subcontinent? [ergo, North America is occasionally considered a subcontinent even in the English speaking world as this, and the many other sources I presented show]. I mean, are we willing to accept sources as "reliable" only when we agree with what is therein stated but reinterpret to reject the rest, as if we were the authorities in the subject? Unlike you, it is because of his lengthy publication history and decades of academic research that I consider him to be a very reputable source (even above an encyclopedia that reports what academics find). Had his field of studies been East Asia, I would considered him to be ill-informed. But that is not the case. --the Dúnadan 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it really is a reasonable assumption. First, note that the authoritative sources that I've provided in English consistently adhere to the "North America is a continent" model. Second, note that his professional work, based on the C.V. I see on that page, is focused on Latin America, and he publishes in Spanish. Third, note that this particular book was published in both English and Spanish, and he jumps back and forth between both usages: "North American sub-continent" on pages xii, 307 and 329 in the 1999 edition (pages xx, 113 and 341 in the 2006 edition), but "North American continent" on pages 7, 113, and 151 in the 1999 edition (pages 7, 148 and 150 in the 2006 edition) [20]. In a book published in both English and Spanish, written by a professor who specializes in Latin America, it doesn't particularly surprise me that he diplomatically straddles the fence between English and Spanish usage. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I say, it is because he is an expert in Latin American studies, that I consider him a reputable source and I really doubt terms like this would "slip off" or come out unnoticed that easily. You are, in fact, interpreting his ambivalence as "diplomacy" where it could also be interpreted as precision: in each particular occasion he refers to a particular concept: the "subcontinent" and the continent, and that he knew what he was talking about. Is my interpretation really invalid or preposterous? Maybe so, maybe not.

My point here is that your interpretation is as [in]valid, as mine. But interpretations are really not important. The fact, however, remains: the concept is occasionally used in English, whether you want to [dis]qualify his style or not. I ask again, are we suppose to judge, interpret and disqualify sources, and if so, based on which criteria? The criterion of our own interpretation of how it is supposed to be and why the academician's paper does not adjust to my perception? Aren't we supposed to present all possible sources? You disqualified the first sources based on the assumption that the authors' native language was not English (and even a Pedro Pérez could have been born in the US and be perfectly fluent in English) and then you disqualify the latter source based on the assumption that in spite of being a reputable English researcher, he carelessly picked up the term, because he happens to be an authoritative source in the same subject being discussed and perhaps not in East Asia or Rwanda, which, based on your argument, would have prevented him from being at best, diplomatic, at worse, misinformed.

I didn't say it "slipped off" or was "unnoticed". This particular book, published in both English and Spanish, is clearly intended for both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking audiences, and he (I presume intentionally) goes back and forth between English usage ("North American continent") and Spanish usage ("North American sub-continent"). I truly understand your perspective -- "North American sub-continent", a phrase that you originally learned in Spanish, seems entirely natural to you. But this phrase and concept is not natural in English. Here's another perspective: This book, translated to Spanish, almost certainly continues to use both phrases (North American continent and North American sub-continent). This does not imply that the term "North American continent" is typical in Spanish; it simply means that a book that straddles the line between English and Spanish usage jumps back and forth between both terms. I'm struggling to understand why this point appears to be so important to you, to be honest. The article acknowledges the Latin-American understanding of the term "North American" -- something that the Spanish and Portuguese versions of Wikipedia, by the way, do not do with regard to English usage -- and I'm fine with that. In the vanishingly rare occasions when this usage appears in English, it can be directly linked to the Latin American usage. Even claiming that this is occasional usage in English violates the undue weight policy, by implying that this usage is at all typical in English. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review my comments below which have answered many of your concerns. I just want to point out a couple of things. First, you are claiming things that you can't prove (i.e. "vanishingly rare"; I think it is quite the opposite, in that it the occurrence of such terms, even if by mistake, diplomacy or mistranslation, is increasing and not vanishing... but, I cannot prove this myself either). Secondly, "occasional" and "typical" are not synonyms"; ergo, we are not violating the undue weight policy. If the adjective "occasional" (which Webster defines as "encountered, occurring, appearing, or taken at irregular or infrequent intervals", italics mine) seems to portray (at least for you) the meaning of "typical" (?), then I suggest the alternatives "rarely", "uncommonly" or "infrequent". I believe that not mentioning the occasional usage violates the "inclusion of all points of view" policy, especially when they come from academic sources. Finally, this particular point is "so" important not only per se, but by what it represents: I find it very objectionable (and against all that Wikipedia stands for) to disregard and reject reputable sources when they do not conform to the "popular" or "extended" point of view. Setting a precedent of such a behavior even if it is a "minor" issue is detrimental to the project, and discourages editors who happen to have different, but properly sourced, points of view, from participating. --the Dúnadan 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to interpret the silence in this debate after the above comment. If no further opposition arises, I think the "usage" section should be reedited accordingly; that is, state that the usage of North America in the second bullet (regardless of the motives, or its exceptional connotation vis-à-vis the "standard" point of view) is also occasionally (rarely? uncommonly? infrequently?) present in English-speaking publications, with a link to any (or some) of the Academic papers whose links I have provided (most importantly, that of Dr. Hanmnett). --the Dúnadan 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You can interpret the silence a couple of ways, I guess. I've been buried in work, and this discussion isn't a priority. Doesn't it seem faintly ridiculous to you that we've invested approximately 5,000 words of discussion into a debate about inserting four words into this article, when you're not even disputing my point that this usage is profoundly unusual in English? My position hasn't changed:

1. All authoritative sources in English define North America as a discrete continent, not a "subcontinent of the Americas". Not "many" sources, or "the majority" of sources, but all of them.
2. All citations that you and others have offered to dispute this have been directly linked to the Latin American usage. None of us is disputing Latin American usage; the dispute is whether this usage can be characterized as having any currency whatsoever in English.
3. All of the citations, save one, are quotes or articles written by native Spanish speakers. This last citation, which you seem to be now hanging your entire argument on, is in a book about Mexico, published in both English and Spanish, which arbitrarily jumps back and forth between both usages. This citation simply does not justify adding a comment that characterizes this usage as having any level of currency in the English language in general.
4. I have to make the observation that everyone who has argued for this point about usage in the English language has been a native speaker of Spanish or Portuguese. I'm telling you straight-up with no particular agenda that my experience agrees with the authoritative sources that I have cited. Your argument is coloured by your understanding of normal usage in your native language.
5. And, as a by-the-way observation, the English idiom "vanishingly rare" doesn't mean "decreasing"; it means "so rare as to be irrelevant". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to be impolite when I said that I didn't know how to interpret your silence. I understand if you were busy and weren't able to continue with this thread of discussion. Unfortunately, we are repeating the same arguments over and over, and it seems I have failed to express myself properly. I will rephrase some comments and add new arguments. Please review them thoroughly, as I believe I have already answered some of your concerns:

• I am not challenging the geographical definition of North America as a continent, I am challenging the way we are defining the usage of the term North America in English.
• The several usages of the term "North America", in the English language, happen to be subregions of the North American continent. Some of the usages of the term "North America" as a subergion are: [1] North America as Anglo America, [2] North America as USA, Canada and Mexico, and [3] North America as US, Canada and Mexico, plus Bermuda, St. Pierre and Michelon, and Greenland.
• No particular name is generally ascribed to either [1], [2] or [3]. However, the term "subcontinent" has been used to refer to all three of them in English by native English speakers. When I provided the links above, I exclusively listed Academic papers that used the term "subcontinent" to refer to [2] (or, arguably [3]), based on the context (by an explicit mention of Mexico). I only listed those that included Mexico, so that none of them could be rejected by their ambiguity. It seems, however, that some, or specifically, that of Dr. Hamnett, is rejected precisely because it relates to Mexico.
• However, I can provide plenty of references (Academic or otherwise) in which the term "subcontinent" is used in English by English speaking authors to refer to [1] (and some of them, given the ambiguity of the context, may also refer to [2] or [3]). Please review: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]). More can be found by simply googling "North American subcontinent" (in quotation marks). Even if you argue that all of these refer exclusively to [1], they prove that that North America is not a discrete continent, at least in usage.
• From those sources that I found, I tried to eliminate those (Academic or otherwise) who were written by authors whose names were not "English"; a very objectionable criterion. Judging whether a person is perfectly fluent in English by his/her name is subjective (and, in my opinion, naïve).
• I am a native speaker of English (and Spanish), and I live in an English-peaking country. Not that it really matters (but you seem to make an argument out of it, and seem to find that my arguments are "coloured" by my purported understanding of my native language). English does not belong to the monolingual residents of English-speaking countries. Just as origin or ethnicity should not be the criteria to accept/reject an argument (which would be an ad hominem argument), neither should be bilingualism. In the same way, origin, ethnicity, bilingualism (or lack thereof) and field of study (e.g. Latin America), should not be the the criteria to reject an Academic paper or book. If we do so, we are setting ourselves above the Academicians in order judge from among all valid sources to tell which one is "right" and which one is "wrong", something that contradicts the very nature of Wikipedia.
• I am not saying that the alternative usage of NA as a clearly defined region comprising US+Can+Mex (regardless of the name you want to attach to it) is general or common in all English-speaking countries. I have said it before, when I lived in Canada, I noticed that the concept of North America (region) was almost always defined as Anglo-America, and Mexico was commonly reckoned as a Central American country. That, however, is not the case here in the United States, especially in the Southwest, where Mexico is commonly reckoned as part of this "entity" called North America (region) that excludes Central America. Adjectives such as "occasional" (which Webster defines as "infrequent"), accurately portray the occurrence of the term to refer to [2] taking into account all English-speaking countries. In some of these rare occurrences, the word "subcontinent" is used for either [1], [2] or [3], purported motives aside (e.g. "out of diplomacy).
• Even if you disregard the non-Academic sources that I provided for the existence of [2] as a "region" or "entity" (whether this region was therein called "subcontinent" or not), I believe that disregarding Academic sources (which precede encyclopedic definitions) when the information they present does not conform to the "popular" or "most extended" point of view or definition, is objectionable and against everything Wikipedia stands for. That is why this "minor" issue in a "minor" section of a relatively "unimportant" article is so important to me.

--the Dúnadan 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, this is about usage. Usage of the term "North America" in English falls into three general categories, as discussed above. The geographical continent, the three NAFTA countries, or just Canada and the United States. Usage of the "subcontinent" concept is a separate point.
• It strikes me as self-evident that to say that some usage appears in any language, then by definition, we must be talking about native speakers, which is why I rejected the citations from Mexican nationals who were clearly still using the Spanish "subcontinente" concept when they were speaking in English. This observation is common sense, and completely uncontroversial.
• If we look at this in terms of Google references, I find 1,950,000 references to "North American continent" and a total of 106 references to either "North American subcontinent" or "North American sub-continent". Even if we include the citations in that search from Latin American sources, that gives us 0.005%, or a ratio of 1:18396. Let's think about that ratio. If we say that someone does something "occasionally", the implication is what, every few months? Every year or two? If someone does something one day out of every 18,396 days, that's once every 50 years. That's not "occasionally", that's "almost never". This point of view is so rare in English as to be insignificant. WP:UNDUE says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• You misunderstood me, from what I can tell from your argument in the second bullet. Let me rephrase: (1) You are rejecting citations of purported Mexican nationals based on their names. If you consider that Mexico is the the sixth cited ancestry in the US, this presumption (or assumption) is objectionable, or as valid as rejecting citations of purported German or Italian nationals based on their last names, who might also be American and whose first language might also be English; (2) being a Mexican, Latin American, or Spanish national (and having Spanish as a native language) does not rule out the possibility of being perfectly fluent in English. I have met many Latin Americans whose first language is Spanish that have a deeper knowledge of the English language than Americans, and many Americans whose grammar and spelling in Spanish is impeccable.
• In any case, your observations are controversial in that you frame them in categorical and absolute terms (e.g. "Mexicans...were clearly still using the Spanish concept") instead of hypothetical terms (e.g. "Arguably, I assume they would be using the Spanish concept"). You cannot determine how "clearly" they use their concepts, or how "clearly" an Academician uses (or misuses) a term intentionally or unintentionally, or how clearly "everyone" who argues about a particular point is not a native speaker of English. You can argue your assumption, but you cannot be categorical in your statements so as to absolutely reject other user's "assumptions" as fallacies.
• The ratio assumption is comparing apples and oranges (the NA "subcontinent" being a subregion of the NA continent, but not the same entity). If I recall correctly, we were discussing about the "occasional" [or infrequent] usage of the word "subcontinent" to refer to the North American region that exclusively refers to all territories north of Central America (the second bullet in the usage section: "NA subcontinent is used in Spanish [and infrequently in English] in reference to..."). Comparing the of the number occurrences of this NA region to the number of occurrences in which this same region is [mis]labeled as "subcontinent" would be the appropriate methodology to determine if its use is "extensive", "common", "occasional" "rare", "infrequent", "vanishingly rare" or "insignificant", whereby you would have to set a predetermined (and arbitrary) scale to determine at what point (or ratio) a phrase becomes "vanishingly rare".

--the Dúnadan 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mexican nationals, not "purported". I was referring to three of your citations from above ([35], [36], [37]).
• I'm not sure why you're mixing in the completely separate point about what an American or Canadian typically means by "North America". That's a valid, but separate, discussion.
• This entire discussion about about the Latin American concept that the Americas are a single continent, and that North and South America are therefore subcontinents. It's a perfectly valid observation about Latin American usage, already noted in the article. This concept is vanishingly, insignificantly rare in English, and adding it to the comment about Latin American usage implies that this concept is also typically used in English.
• Clearly there's a continuum from extensive, to common, to occasional, to rare, etc. As I've said, applying simple common sense, if you ask someone how he'd characterize something that happens once every 50 years, the word would not be "occasional". He might say "rare", he might say "almost never". In any event, claiming that this Latin American usage is "occasional" in English is, to put it mildly, a stretch. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ahh, it is good that you specify which Mexican nationals you refer to, and the ones you reject. What about the rest? What about the second point, can't a Mexican national be fluent in English?
• No, again, I must repeat myself: occasional [infrequent, according to Webster] does not, I repeat, does not mean typical. Adding a properly qualified comment does not imply that the concept is typical.
• Your comparison, again, is inaccurate. You seemed to have missed my observation as to what it is that you should be comparing, before claiming how "vanishingly rare" a concept is. Even if you do the new research of occurrences of appropriate terms, comparing number of occurrences with "time" is, nonetheless, inappropriate. How can you compare occurrences of a term in a language, with occurrences of events in time? Is 1/10000 in language equivalent to 1/10000 in months? or years?

I am sorry, if the discussion is circular, and we are repeating ourselves, Douglas (now that we are using our surnames). I have been answering your arguments specifically, though. Like you pointed out, this is a minor issue. I don't object to that. It is the methodology by which this minor issue is being rejected what I find very objectionable.

--the Dúnadan 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No comments to the above? --the Dúnadan 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On another debate (concerning Mesoamerica vis-a-vis Middle America), a source was provided that defined terms with a somewhat different connotation than the most extended, historical and traditional one, and the editor presented it as equally valid. I objected, but did not completely disqualify the source, because I am not a researcher or expert. However, I advocated for the use of the adjective "occasionally" [or rarely, or uncommonly] when using that particular definition. I believe the same could [and should] be done here, in light of the [many] source[s] provided.

Do not mince words -- a number of sources were provided to qualify the edits made (that the two maybe synonymous, without any qualifiers, which is particularly apt given the etymology of the former), and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation clearly indicate that the order of terms indicates prevalence. There is no dispute regarding the prevailing meaning, but if one cannot source 'occasional' usage (or synonym), it too needn't be iterated. Corticopia 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you indeed provided a number of reputed sources. I have provided a number of sources here too, i.e. I can source 'occasional' usage from the Academia. --the Dúnadan 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but no sources explicitly indicate "occasional" usage, while others like Encarta may indicate other areas are sometimes included (and, thus, may imply other things). The only true source explicitly and directly indicating how the term is used is, unsurprisingly, the Fowler's usage guide; the Oxford volume explicitly addresses this as well. We are all trying to equitably editorialise and synthesise content based on presentations of source matter. In any event, you might choose to frame your arguments differently hereafter. Corticopia 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that plenty of Academic sources use the phrase proves its [occasional] use. It seems quite obvious to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no source that explicitly states that Middle America is a geographic region located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas. Explicitly or implicitly the prhase is used. By the way, could you please adivse me on how to frame my arguments hereafter? --the Dúnadan 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the authoritative sources you provide are encyclopedias. If I am to judge or interpret sources (like you have), I would rank the academia as a superior source, because encyclopedias [usually] do not engage in research but rather report and summarize the research of academics. In fact, university professors, academics and scientists are the ones who evaluate the accuracy of any particular encyclopedia. (Do you remember that news article that reported that some scientists had evaluated both a reputable paper encyclopedia and Wikipedia and found, roughly, the same amount of inaccuracies on both?). Moreover, encyclopedias [yes, even Britannica] usually cite their sources, making their sources (usually the Academia) more authoritative than themselves.

Thirdly, like you pointed out below, we are talking about usage, and usage does not always correspond to the normative definitions. The encyclopedias you are citing might provide the [supreme, unquestionable and unique] definition of North America [as a continent]. But that does rule out colloquial usages that might differ from region to region, with different nuances and connotations. North America, as Anglo America, is one of them. North America as an "entity" ("region" and rarely "subcontinent", even if out of diplomacy), is also used. I am not advocating for a new alternative definition of North America. But simply to the inclusion of the phrase "... and in English-speaking countries too, albeit occasionally" in the second bullet of the usage section.

--the Dúnadan 05:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the ranking of sources, WP:Reliable sources and WP:A. But that's something I think everybody knows. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim, let me try to explain you something. A concept is NOT exclusive to a language, in Latin America we view America as a single continent, but I speak english. That does not mean, that when I start to speak English I magically start to think America as two separate continents. I totally agree that we must have reliable sources to state something in Wikipedia, but the sources should not necessarily be in English. Furthermore, the english wikipedia is NOT restricted to a native-english view of world. Specially since many people from other countries(myself included) speak and write english just as fine as natives. Hopefully you can understand this.Chico 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Chico, this section is about usage. As I've said above, I have grave doubts about this entire section being encyclopedic, as usage is of necessity an attribute of a particular group of speakers. My point is that the concept of "North America as a subcontinent of the Americas" doesn't exist in the English-speaking world. English-language reliable sources don't use the term. Canadian, American, British, Australian, New Zealand, and Indian students are taught that there are seven continents, and that North and South America are two continents. All citations offered on this page for this precise concept are in Spanish, or in English but from native Spanish speakers. As you grew up in Brazil speaking Portuguese, the "Americas are a single continent" model is the one that seems natural to you, and you naturally use the same phrase when you speak English. The chunk of text that I've repeatedly removed is the assertion that this concept is used (sometimes, occasionally, whatever) in English-language authoritative sources, or by native English speakers -- and the reality is that it is not. If it appears in English, it's only because the comment was made by a native Portuguese or Spanish speaker who is expressing the concept the way he would in his native language. Each version of Wikipedia reflects the world-view of native speakers of a particular language -- es:América del Norte and pt:América do Norte both assert that North America is a subcontinent of the continent of the Americas. They make no effort to recognize that different cultures recognize different models. And this is completely reasonable. The Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias reflect the views of native speakers and reliable sources in Spanish and Portuguese; the English Wikipedia simply does the same. I've said repeatedly that if we're going to have a usage section, I have no objection to acknowledging the Latin American understanding that North America is a subcontinent of the Americas. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated usage reversion

Alex and Corticopia, please both stop the current flurry of edit-warring on the "Usage" section - it isn't helpful. Please discuss it here - if not, I'll report this to WP:3RR. As there is a sourced quote (from Fowler) indicating "occasional" usage, it would seem appropriate to mention here, and should remain unless a consensus is reached otherwise. - David Oberst 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely -- also note that the other editor involved has previously removed or reframed this information beforehand, after claiming to have checked it. Really, what does this editor have to hide? or fear? Unless a consensus supports excluding cited content (and there is none), there's really no reason to. Corticopia 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David for your message. That information is already included in the article it belongs to, Central America. The section is clearly about the usage of the term North America, nothing else, there's no doubt about it. It is not necessary to mention other regions, since it is very obvious what the section is about. Fowler reference may say what the usage of CA is, but that's irrelevant due to the fact the section, again, is only about the usage of NA. If the information is controversial, then it should be debated first, not included and then debated. Corticopia is not a new user and he should know how to proceed. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I only want to add that this issue was already discussed (see above) several weeks ago. Back then, the quote was more or less the same Corticopia now wants to include (again). Since it was clear the section was about the usage of the term North America, the text was edited and no one opossed. It has been kept that way since that discussion, clearly indicating all the parts involved agreed (or the other editors would have complained and edited). Also back then, Corticopia took that information and added it to the article Central America, where it logically belongs. I really don't understand what he's trying to do by bringing this issue again. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again -- this is a straw man argument. The Fowler's entry pertains to "America" and, as we all know, its constituents and 'regions' are not mutually exclusive. Nothing exists in isolation -- Central America is the southern region of this continent, and content from a USAGE guide about USAGE of these terms is completely appropriate. Shall we remove notations of Latin American (Spanish) notions of the Americas and this subcontinente because they are not in English, in this English Wikipedia? You and you alone falsely maintain that this cited information is irrelevant (others have been indifferent), yet you also want to list NAFTA as a possible alternate usage without reliably sourcing it -- particularly after your abortive forking of related content. Continued confirmation bias. And, this information was discussed beforehand -- after you removed the Fowler's reference after claiming to have checked it. I will await comments from others. Corticopia 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your main problem is you don't understand that the section is not about the "usage of terms" but only about how the term NORTH AMERICA is used, not only in english. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And your main problem -- in concert with others -- is that usage for entities in this bona fide region of this continent cannot exist in isolation. Other editors may choose to glaze over or be unwittingly hoodwinked by your nationalistic bias, but not this one. Corticopia 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the existing wording, to show both the US/Canada usage, and US/Canada/Mexico usage. I think there has been too much effort trying to define (mutually exclusive) true, Platonic, "North America"s. The term is being used by different people, and also by the same people in different contexts, and none of them are under any obligation to ensure the usages are compatible or consistent.

While the question of "Where's Mexico" when describing the US/Canada "duo" usage may or may not be moot in the existing short bit of text, if this section is expanded and better integrated into the article (as it probably should be), mentioning what users of the "duo" phrasing do with the rest of region is likely going to come up, and I hope another revert war wouldn't be launched if it were mentioned that such users sometimes lump Mexico into some other category. - David Oberst 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in -- your edits are rather equitable. :) Corticopia 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Extent

Should i be asking this here? How comes North America often get shortened to Canada, USA and Mexico only? Simply south 21:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arg - the short answer is: Allophones confuse North America with Nortamerica. In English, North American is essentially never shortened to those three. It sometimes is used as a contrast to Latin America, but then it's US+Canada+Greenland+Bermuda+St. Pete and Mickey. WilyD 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Although in a lot of contexts, it turns out the other countries are much smaller, have much less political clout and economic influence and such, so they're neglected not because they're not part of North America, but because they're not important to the specific discussion. WilyD 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily, I think it is a little too extreme to say NA is never shortened to Can, US, Mex. Dúnadan has provided a lot of sources indicating the term is also used that way in english. How often it is used, is the real question. However, stricly geographically, North America is a continent (two Americas model) or a subcontinent (single America continent). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I qualified it with essentially WilyD 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, noted. I was confused because you added emphasis to "never". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even "essentially never", unless you live outside the US. I have provided plenty of links to prove that it is [widely] used, but I guess it was a useless effort... people do choose to believe what they want to believe. --theDúnadan 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I will weigh in here. The extent of continents is a largely subjective exercise with historical precedents, prevalent norms, and regional conventions. I believe the continent article describes the various meanings. Commonly, Canada, the U.S. and also most (see below for reason) or all of Mexico form the bulk of the North American landmass. The isthmus (by definition, a narrowing of land) beginning in northern Mexico and extending southeastward to the narrower Isthmus of Tehuantepec and onward through to Central America becomes narrowest at Panama, where it connects with the landmass known as South America. It's difficult to classify the Caribbean because the islands there overlay a diverse convergence of numerous tectonic plates. (Collectively, Mexico, countries of CA, and the Caribbean are in the middle of it all, no pun intended.) Relatedly, continents often include nearby islands which particularly share the same shelf (e.g., Greenland).

All of these mainlands are interconnected and lead to a common interpretation of just one continent -- America -- which may be subdivided into smaller components (subcontinents/subcontinente). This is especially true when continental shelves/islands are considered. All the same, Panama -- either the country's border (with Colombia) or the canal -- separates the Americas into two continents (at least most commonly in English). The tappering of land beginning in Mexico, coupled with its unique ethnohistoric/demographic patterns as opposed to its neighbours, has led to a unique classification by some for the region of Central America. Simultaneously, this area shares a language with South America yielding Latin America, which is often distinguished from a region with English roots/other similarities and which many still refer to as North America (but more correctly as other things like Anglo-America) -- Canada and the US -- which also excludes other entities (e.g., Greenland) due to linguistic divide, population, or something else. This also doesn't deny more recent integration happening througout the Americas (e.g., NAFTA). When ALL of the above are at play, it's difficult for a straight answer and (yet) no one may be wrong. I hope this makes sense. :) Corticopia 16:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense. --theDúnadan 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

TY! Corticopia 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Geography of North America

Hello. Usage and Geography sections are different. The first is about how the term "North America" is used both in English and in other languages, in this case in Spanish. Geography is a section about the terrain description of North America and its classification. As all of us know, North America is a continent in the two separate continents model, but also a subcontinent of America. I think it is appropiate to note that in this section, as it is in the article South America. So I added the following in the last part of the section:

Additionally North America is considered a subcontinent^[1][2], in the geographic model that treats America as a single continent, extending from Alaska (US) to Mexico, and including the island of Greenland.

It is a small notation. The single American continent might not be used in most English speaking countries, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve mention, specially when a big part of the planet uses this model. It might not be common in English, but it is equally valid. I believe just because some knowledge is not in use in your language, that doesn't mean you shouldn't share it with everybody. Also, as I already said, it is a small notation that barely elaborates about the point.

Well the problem here is that user Corticopia and an "anonimous" user (IP from Toronto, Canada) "are" deleting this perfectly sourced information. One of the arguments is "the sources are not in English". Well, Wikipedia says English sources are preferable, but sources in other languages are also valid. Please note that nobody has opposed the inclusion of this small portion of text but Corticopia. Thank you. I'd like to hear your opinions. AlexCovarrubias 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir? Yesterday, I merely made edits that are inline with those at South America, which retains the information and sources but consolidates it with content in the first sentence. There is NO reason why its reckoning as a 'subcontinent' elsewhere needs to be mentioned twice, in the first and last sentences of the Geography section; as well, the added notion is poorly worded and (conversely) there's no reason to retain such a 'small notation' (and it is that) since it's redundant and yields nothing new. This notion is again noted in the Usage section, but that's not my point. I can't speak for anonymous IPs, and (go figure) there are probably a number of English editors from Toronto, but a clutch of editors from Mexico have continually readded this information, always verbatim, generally in the same spot, and usually with the same spelling error (which was rectified after I pointed this out to an administrator regarding your behaviour): this is unquestionably YOU. So put a sock in it. And, even despite your pleas, no one has yet supported this inclusion, either.

Until you can justify why such information needs to be mentioned repeatedly in the geography section or a consensus support this, it will be continually excised. Corticopia 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How hypocritical. You know that "anon. IP user" is you. That's not the point here, but if anyone's interested in Corticopia's multi-account behaviour read this. Of course I opened this talk to receive opinions and introduce the notation. But according to your observations, it would be better to move the subcontinent statement to the geography section, because it is not only a matter of usage, it is the geographical conception of North America. I'll just wait for opinions from serious editors. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how you keep dredging up the same old sh*t -- both in content and in references to editorial behaviours not your own -- and still nobody gives a damn. Get it? That's more a reflection on you than anything. Anyhow, I'm through here until a serious editor decides to comment. (And before you decide to base your content additions on the 'Myth' reference, which I challenge, please provide direct quotations from that reference on the talk page.) Until then ... Corticopia 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism?

In the first section the sentence "This main theory is complicated by the fact that Amerigo Vespuci had previously my bit will soon take over the New World." looks like it was partly vandalised, or else has parts of two sentences in it. Cloveapple 10:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

I think we should focus on the first section and the "Demographics" in this article/ If you looks at featured article Antarctica you can see how well neat and organized it is with much vital information. Im going to get started and improve the quality to turn this article into a A-Class article in a matter of days or hours. A Raider Like Indiana 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maps excluding Greenland

Maybe this has been discussed above, but the picture showing 4 maps with a black background (caption: Sedimentary, volcanic, plutonic, metamorphic etc) leaves Greenland out of the picture. The other maps in the article do include Greenland. -- JackofOz 09:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii

The timezone part of the main template here denotes Hawaii as the most western point of the North American continent! Is Hawaii really in North America?

No, Hawaii belongs to Oceania (Polynesia), is not part of North America nor America at all. JC 08:30, 17 September 2007 (PST)

Clipperton Island

Should Clipperton Island (French possession) be included in the Countries and territories section??. The island is bigger than Navassa Island. JC 08:55 28 September 2007 (PST).

Other names

Section created to host discussion about the proposed move/merge

• of New World#Other names (1500–1616) for North America
• to North America#Usage

— Komusou ^talk @ 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge done after 7-day without opposition. — Komusou ^talk @ 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)