Talk:Central America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mexico

I have to admit that I have never heard of Mexico being included in the list of Central American nations. I am curious what the source is for the inclusion of Mexico in this list. My inclination would be to remove it--I have always conceived of Central America as being the small nations between Mexico and South America. Does anyone have a differing opinion? soulpatch

According to encyclopedia.com:

Historically, geographers considered it to extend from the natural boundary of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, S Mexico, to that of the Isthmus of Panama. 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. -- Zoe

I've changed the article accordingly. The article also incorrectly described "Central America" as Spanish-speaking North America, which is not true not only because Mexico is not part of Central America, but also becaused Belize is English-speaking and is considered part of Central America. soulpatch

Part of North America?

Regarding this comment --

Central America IS Central America, not the southern part of north america, if that was true what do you call south america?, the southern southen part of Nort America?. America is conformed of 3 main blocks well defined geographically and geologically. When you are thinking of central america as part of north america you are thinking of soccer world team divisions. Books distributed in the us shouldn't be the only source of information for the rest of the world, else we would be 1984ing wikipedia, "He who controls the present, controls the past".

-- I will be as polite as possible. The person who wrote it is wrong. Geology is not directly relevant to geographic classification. For example: The State of California, where I live, sits on TWO tectonic plates - the North American plate and the Pacific Plate, east and west of the San Andreas Fault, respectively. If that (literally) underlying fact were relevant to our geographic classification, them San Francisco would be in North America while Monterrey, Los Angeles, Baja California, etc., would all be on a separate continent (Pacifica?). But, of course, ALL of Alta and Baja California is located in North America.

North and South America together comprise one landmass that stretches from the Arctic Ocean to Cape Horn. Whether they are labeled one continent or two continents is a matter of geographic debate.

Geographers who focus on the totality of physical landmass reckon the world has five continents: Africa, America, Antarctica, Australia, and Eurasia.

A few geographers who really focus on the totality of physical landmass observe that Africa is physically connected to Asia at the Sinai Peninsula, so they reckon there are only FOUR continents - because consider Africa, Europe and Asia to all be one continent. These geographers are very much a minority, however, but the reason their reasoning is not generally accepted is extremely important (as I will elicit below).

There is also an even smaller minority of geographers who do not classify Australia as a continent but consider it to be the largest island in the world, and to otherwise exist as part of Asia. Depending how these people regard Africa (some think it separate, some think it part of Africa-Eurasia), there are as few as three continents in the world - America, Antarctica, and "Afri-austral-eurasia." This view (literally) of the world is NOT shared by very many people.

Now, geographers who focus on topographical boundaries within the five overall landmasses noted three paragraphs above - who currently constitute the majority of geographers worldwide - reckon the world's major landmasses amount to seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia (also reckoned as Australiasia or Oceania, which includes New Zealand and other Pacific Island nations), Europe, North America, and South America.

The boundaries of Antarctica and Australia are obvious (though the boundary of Australasia/Oceania are not). Likewise, the boundaries of Africa, ignoring the "de minimis" connexion to Asia, are also obvious.

The physical boundaries between Europe and Asia, though seemingly arbitrary, are also somewhat obvious. From eastern Siberia westward through Poland and northern Germany to the Low Countries and France, Eurasia is almost entirely plain - except for Ural Mountains that conveniently run north to south from the Arctic Sea southward almost to the Caspian Sea, the world's largest lake. Between the Caspian Sea and the southern reach of the Ural Mountains is a broad plain through which the Ural River flows from the Ural Mountains into the Caspian Sea. Thus, the Ural Mountains, Ural River, and Caspian Sea are taken together as the principal boundary between Europe and Asia. The secondary boundary is a line drawn through the Caucasus Mountains from the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, according to highest point of the land. (Basically, if the prevailing drainage of the land is southward, it's south of the line - and, thus, in Asia; if the drainage is northward, it's north of the line and located in Europe). The continental boundary at the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardonelles is, of course, a natural boundary - with Asia to the east and Europe to the west (including all islands in the Aegean Sea). The classification of Rhodes and Cyprus as European and Asian, respectively, is arbitrary in terms of physical geography. Both are closer to mainland Asia than to mainland Europe, but Rhodes is entirely Greek while Cyprus, although mostly Greek, is also partly Turkish.

The dividing line between mainland North and South America - which, again, is one landmass - is less obvious than the boundaries of Antarctica and Antarctica, but much more obvious than the boundaries between Europe and Asia. A description of the Americas as a whole is in order.

At the top of North America is a massive Arctic archipelago that is politically shared by Denmark (Greenland) and Canada. A very small minority of geographers also put Iceland in North America, because it is closer to Greenland than it is to Europe (with which it is almost invariably classified). But whereas Greenland is the largest in a series of islands in the Arctic Ocean, Iceland is a volcanic island that was created and exists as a geographic isolate. It's classification as part of Europe is, in terms of physical geography, purely arbitrary; but the island was initially discovered and colonised by the Irish, and then by Norwegians - no Inuit and certainly no Aboriginal Americans have ever lived in Iceland - so if it must be arbitrarily classified as part of North America or part of Europe, the logical place to put it is Europe.

North America is a very broad continent, from east to west and between the Arctic Circle and the Gulf of Mexico. South of the Rocky Mountains, however, the continent narrows dramatically, forming a series of progressively narrow isthmi (plural of "isthmus"). The narrowest of these is the Isthmus of Panama, and this is the point where North America ends and South America begins. The islands of the Caribbean, along with Bermuda, Newfoundland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, are all classified as part of North America. Even islands like Trinidad and Tobago, which are closer to mainland South America than they are to mainland North America, are classified as part of North America.

In regard to that, there are only two places you can draw a line to classify the Caribbean islands as North American or South American - either the southernmost point of the chain of islands, which is where the line is drawn (somewhat parallel to the line drawn at the Isthmus of Panama); or you could draw it at the northernmost point of the contiguous islands, which would put Cuba and the Bahamas in South America.

Bermuda is a geographic isolate that is classified as part of North America because it's nearest to North America and, while its people are of both European and African ancestry, it's too far away from either of those continents to ever be considered part of them. (Iceland, by contrast, is at least located in a semi-string of unrelated islands -- Iceland, the Faeroes, and the Shetlands -- in a straight line between itself and Norway; so there's at least a modicum of logic to putting it in Europe, if you must officially put it anywhere).

The label "Central America" is ultimately a holdover from the Spanish colonial period. Colonial master Spain regarded the Americas as ONE continent with four regions. The broad region to the left (as you faced the Americas from Spain), or south, was South America; the broad region to the right (north) was North America; the narrow part of the mainland in the middle, behind the islands of the Caribbean, was Central America; and the Caribbean islands, of course, where in the middle between North and South America, and in front of Central America.

But the colonial Spanish view of the Americas as four regions of one continent does not reflect the geographic reality.

Otherwise, whatever else may be said about Central America, the vast majority of professional geographers either classify it as part of North America in a world with seven continents; or as part of the Americas, regarded as one continent, in a world with five continents. No academically-respected professional geographer has ever suggested that Central America is a continent all to itself.

Beyond that, since I mentioned the rest of the world, the other geographical boundary dispute concerns the beginning and end of Oceania and Asia. Obviously, mainland Asia is in Asia, and the nearest islands to it - Japan - are in Asia. The Philippines is also classified as part of Asia because of its proximity to the mainland, but this is an arbitrary classification. So is the classification of Indonesia and Singapore in Asia - especially with the western half of the island of New Guinea (part of Indonesia) classified as Asian while the eastern half is classified as Oceanian (or Australiasian).

Ethno-culturally, most of the native populations of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Taiwan are Austronesian - not Asian - but Taiwan and the Malaya Peninsula are undoubtedly part of Asia. So, the line dividing separating the island nations of Oceania/Australasia from the island nations of Asia is purely arbitrary. Taiwan, Okinawa, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia are assigned to Asia; the islands to the east and south of that line, are assigned to Oceania/Australasia. The regions of Australasia/Oceania are Australia and its adjacent islands (e.g., Tasmania), Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia (which includes New Zealand, Easter Island, and the Hawaiian Islands - notwithstanding they, like Iceland, are geographic isolates of volcanic origin, the indigenous people of Hawaii are Polynesians who speak an Austronesian language, thus it is considered appropriate to put Hawaii in Polynesia, if one is going to put it anywhere).

---

First of all, Central America as far as I know, isnt considered a part of North America at all, the countries considered to be North America being Mexico, United States and Canada. Second, I want to express my opinion that Central America, not considered by geographers either a part of North America or South America, should be considered a continent and I wonder why it isnt.

Antonio the Kween Martin

In every history and geography book I've seen, Central America has always been listed as part of North America. There's no basis other than cultural for making it its own continent. -Branddobbe 00:32, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

That's funny. I don't recall any history or geography book that claimed Central America is part of North America. In my US public education, North America was always identified as "Canada, USA, and Mexico". Several times in the past few years, I've trolled the Web to resolve this question, and the references I found never said it's part of either North or South America. I think it makes more sense to call CA part of NA than part of SA or its own continent, but I also recall reading (in some continental drift pages) that some or all of CA was part of the South America landmass that eventually collided with North America.

So, we have mutually contradicting opinions and possibly overgeneralized experiences. What we lack here is explicit citations of authoritative references. Does anyone have some? -- Jeff Q 21:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My "Essential Atlas of the World", Barnes & Noble press, © 2001, ISBN 0-7607-2755-4, clearly indicates on page 67 that North America contains everything up to and including Panama. Not an online reference, but there you go. Ironically, I'll be starting a geography class June 21st. On the other hand, wildlife books of "North America" define it as Canada and the United States. I don't go with that one at all, and assume that they do it because the diversity of birds, trees, mammals etc. explodes as you get past the deserts of northern Mexico, and their books would have to be three times as large (packed with species most Americans will never see). Personally, I've always thought of Central America as part of North America and never heard anyone, apart from Audobon books and Antonio here, say otherwise. -- Yath 23:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Difficult to get authoritative references. Any division system will be conventional and/or tailored to specific needs and requirements – geographical, geological, political, cultural, etc. (think Panama!). Good arguments can be made for any number of continents between three and seven, without even touching on the vexed question of offshore islands. I'd be very suspicious of anyone claiming to be the bearer of the revealed truth (probably more a reflection of the quality – and intensity – of the geographical instruction they received in their formative years). I was taught "five continents" at school, but for the purposes of Wikipedia "seven" is probably the most useful division. With Central America a subdivision (subcontinent?) of North America. –Hajor 23:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In British schools, Central America is taught as being a seperate continent (just as Europe is seperate from Asia) Dan100 22:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Central America and the Caribbean Plate

Geologically, Central America is on the Caribbean Plate, a tectonic plate which is separate from those of North America and South America. So is the land itself sufficiently authoritative for being separate from North America? (SEWilco 05:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

North America is made up of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean Islands. Greenland, the largest island in the world, is also a part of North America. At most, Central America could be theoretically described as a 'sub-continent'

This is pretty frustrating, english language books says Central America is part of North America, central american books obiously don't say that, and if you ask to someone in Spain they probably told you they learn Central America never exist and they think all countries under USA are "South Americans". Ecwpa 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I believe the article intro is pretty summative about the various meanings and interpretations of what Central America is. Definitions vary: North and South America are frequently reckoned as one of seven continents, and sometimes as just one – America. Seismologically, most of Central America is on a distinct tectonic plate (the Caribbean Plate, just as each of North and South America are) and may be a distinct craton, but rarely is Central America referred to as a bona fide continent and more properly a distinct territory/region in the middle of it all. Moreover, the UN distinguishes between the subregions of Northern America and Central America (including Mexico) – both of which comprise North America – and South America. One could even argue that CA is a subcontinent, but this viewpoint is not a prevailing one. E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Middle America

Why does "middle America" redirect here? I thought "middle America" meant middle class suburbia in the United States. -Branddobbe 00:32, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

If so, that makes at least 3 meanings, so perhaps then Middle America should be made into a disambiguation page. It's also an old term for Mesoamerica. -- Infrogmation 00:48, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Order

I sympathize with SqueakBox's attempt to fight US-centrism, and I'm happy that we agree that geographic ordering is better than alphabetic. But unfortunately, it is a general standard that North is up on maps, and that is how people refer to directions. How about if we instead reversed the definition to "located between the the northwest border of Colombia and southern border of Mexico"? Common Man 00:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It got me confused as when I first came here I somehow used to think Costa Rica was further away from the UK than Guatemala, and it took quite a mental leap to get rid of that notion. I am not sure they are given west to east in CA itself, though I appreciate this is the general order given (when it is given geographically) in the English speaking world, but I do also believe in countering systemic bias on wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I sympathise too, but this isn't the place nor instance to do it: arguably, the south > north order is as POV as the converse and doesn't make much sense in this context. As Central America is commonly reckoned to be a part of the North American continent, and distinct from South, a description denoting this order seems logical: any number of dictionaries will indicate this primacy. Can an authority be cited indicating the opposite? I'd advocate south > north anyday if there was cause to do so, but the bias argument is a red herring here. E Pluribus Anthony 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As well, the current ed is confusing: if read a particular way, the current ed reads as if Mexico were a part of South America. E Pluribus Anthony 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, I botched that. As for the direction in the intro, I'm fine either way; I just thought it might be a nice compromise to write it one way in the intro and another in the section. But for the moment, it was easiest for me to just revert the intro to the state before my change, pending some authority to be cited. Common Man 03:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood; I restored the prior lead and perhaps we crossed paths. I'm all for compromise, but there are likely better places to do it, e.g., Latin America, where South America is arguably the 'major' landmass. E Pluribus Anthony 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mexico, again

I have always considered Mexico as part of Central America. Apparently a lot of people (or at least nations) do, according to this United Nations map (Data from here). Not to say that both can't be true. 134.250.72.141

Apparently, they organized nations according to "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings". I don't think that classification is very useful, as they are entirely vague about their purposes and use names like "Northern America" that are highly obscure. --Yath 03:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a very useful classification, for example, when talking about globalization (of economies, of urban culture, of ethnic groups, etc.). Using "Northern America" to describe the U.S. and Canada clearly and unambiguously references economic and social differences between the two sub-regions of the North American continent, in terms of how they interact with the rest of the world. By associating an area's socio-economic connection on a regional level, it's also a bit broader than using terms like "transition economy" or "developing economy," while avoiding potentially ambiguous hierarchical terms like "First, Second, Third World." Not perfect for every type of discussion but seems to be a classification that is both not too specific and not too broad. Markmtl 06:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, Mmtl. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that "central america" is a historic term, and redefining it according to modern economic conditions may be useful for the UN but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Yath 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We beg to differ. Actually, your point is merely one point of view: why is the UN scheme – which is easily verifiable – any less valid than one based on other arguably subjective criteria? Central America is not only a 'historic' term for this region but one with various definitions, e.g., which may or may not include Mexico. If anything, the UN defs are more appropriate because they are neutral and obviate the potential ambiguities you claim these definitions promote. E Pluribus Anthony 09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't part of this discussion include how the term is used today? How is current usage of the term to describe contemporary social and economic regions not worthy of being noted in a contemporary encyclopedia? If you do believe it is only worthy of a "historic" definition, then please describe what leads you to this conclusion. I'm with E Pluribus Anthony on this one. Markmtl 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations is hardly neutral; they are simply another political organization with their particular goals and agendas. Not that I have any objection to mentioning their definition in addition to the standard one. --Yath 09:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Common usage is that Mexico is not a part of Central America, so you can count me with Yath on this one, SqueakBox 13:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

These points-of-view, common and otherwise, are already addressed in the article – I can cite a number of works that advocate either position with varied usage, and users above have commented similarly. So what's the issue here? E Pluribus Anthony 13:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is the UN statement in the opening. This is entirely unnecessary and makes the article look like a casualty of an editorial dispute. I can just about cope with it lower down but its replacement at the top without explanation baffles me. Please explain why the UN bit has to appear in the opening? Does something similar happen in similar articles? I don't believe so and can so know reason for its inclusion in the opening that doesn't have to do with this argument taking place here, SqueakBox 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I (and others above) beg to differ – visit any number of articles regarding continents, regions, etc. and you'll see any number of leads. Even consult similarly ambiguous articles/terms like Middle America and its disambiguation. And why shouldn't such a definition, which isn't rare and differs from the common one, appear upfront as is? Moreover, the def isn't solely a geographic one and has socioeconomic connotations.

NPOV is the true casualty here: the term has various meanings (and this is already stated), and your point-of view assertions/reversions without discussion nor without a consensus supporting them are unjustified. I might tweak it but unless there's a groundswell of opinion to the contrary, I see no reason to diminish the def by moving it down. E Pluribus Anthony 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV certainly is the casualty, you are the one who began reverting, and you haven't even attempted to give an adequate explanation of why the UN's definition should go in and many others not. To claim I did it without discussion is to claim something that is clealry not true, and it is equally clear that there is no consensus for your POV either. Chill out, eh? SqueakBox 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read above (and before), I already did: it's you who have asserted to change things without agreement and I'm merely restoring the status quo. If you're unable to come to grips with that or compel otherwise, deal with it.

And reasserting your point-of-view doesn't validate it. Pot, meet kettle. However, I applaud mentions of other defs like the EU, etc. E Pluribus Anthony 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW: the EU def is curious, noting only the "six-Spanish-speaking countries" of the isthmus. I'd imagine it excludes Mexico due to historical notions regarding the region, but excludes Belize due to it being primarily anglophone linguistically? Mind you, I don't at all object to including it. E Pluribus Anthony 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the border dispute involving Belize is an issue. The reasons behind each political classification decision depends upon each individual body; in this case one has to find the EU stating the reason for the Belize classification, which may be difficult if a reason was never stated and instead just appeared on the record through a non-explanatory process such as voting yes/no. (SEWilco 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually, I think the EU's various practical groupings of states are more for foreign relations purposes and reasons of trade and aid~, than they are meant to define any regions. Belize has political ties with Caribbean states, including membership in CARICOM, and so the EU groups that country in its Caribbean block. It makes sense; it doesn't imply any covert designs to transplant that piece of jungle over to join those other isles... ;) Big Adamsky 07:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; as BA stated before, one can extend this rationale to a number of political associations/definitions of Central American countries, variously excluding/including Mexico, Costa Rica, Belize, Panama ... But we don't need to throw in the baby with the bathwater. IMO. E Pluribus Anthony 07:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

About the naming of UN subregions

I think that the UN is about as neutral as it gets, which is worth settling for. When their Group of Experts on Geographical Names came up with the term Northern America to refer to a statistical regional grouping, it was quite obviously a deliberate choice to avoid confusion with the entire continent of North America. Admittedly, the name Central America is less fortunate, since there was once a country by that name that was not coterminous with the UN subregion. So where does this all leave Mexico? It is not in Northern America, while it is in North America. Membership in NAFTA does not define North America any more than membership in the Central American Parliament defines the limits of Central America - those are international organizations. //Big Adamsky 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Geologically, only part of Mexico is part of North America. Maybe there should be a table which indicates which countries are in which categories for these various classifications. (SEWilco 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

This is subjective: arguably, everything north of the Isthmus of Panama is part of NA (geographically), or all of Panama (politically), and or the West Indies. I think that's the point: a continent is not merely a geological entity (e.g., tectonic plate, rock formations) but also a geographic and cultural one (region, UN or otherwise). And, correct me if I'm wong, but few authorities actually cite Central America as a continent but more a region or arguably a subcontinent. E Pluribus Anthony 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I think we need to mention the countries that are Central America before linking to all soprts of places that aren't CA. The openingt needs a rewrite, hence the tag, (nothing to do with the UN bit)SqueakBox 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very vague complaint, and it puts an undue burden on other editors to go through your change history to surmise what you may have meant. Can you please clarify your complaint? Was it this: [1]? But if so, why is this not in your latest change [2]? Common Man 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is how the intro already reads (and did before). And, as cited/NPOV, I and others disagree with the POV regarding what CA may or may not contain and edits promulgating just one definition. I have removed this tag, particularly after your addition of information that opens it up s'more and edits. Otherwise it smacks of WP:POINT. E Pluribus Anthony 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It now looks much better and neutral to me but the sidelining of the countries that are indisputably in CA was a tremendous problem, and now with the new version it isn't a problem at all to then mention other places (some of which are possibly part of Central America and other like Colombia and South America which clearly are not a part of CA, SqueakBox 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I disbelieve that any countries were sidelined at all: the first sentence is clear while being summative, the list below elaborates (and with some precedent in other articles), and the map exhibits only those countries. E Pluribus Anthony 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly dispute the current neutrality. Please do not remove the tag without either fixing the problem or waiting until others can also input on this opening. Several others haver already taken part in this recent talk page and I am sure they also have an opinion on this subject, SqueakBox 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, from the get-go, you have been very willing to assert a POV without citing why, adding unwarranted tags, and obviating prior/recent discussions indicating otherwise. A redundant listing upfront clutters the intro, and this is already covered off upfront and (now) through a wikified term in the lead to a list of countries. And others already have taken part in the discussion ... and a consensus doesn't yet concur with you. If a groundswell supports overarching changes and a peer review/RfC, fine ... but until then, the neutrality argument/tag is unjustified and will be removed. E Pluribus Anthony 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Noone else has seen my latest edit as you haven't seen fit tolet them. let the tag stay for a few days and see what comments it attracts. Please don't remove it 4 times. Why are you so opposed tot he tag when it merely points out that there uis aPOV dispute which there most certainly is, SqueakBox 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the prior edition because the inchoate listings upfront are bad edits, and I've already explained why. And the POV is your opinion: your recent edits and taggings are not supported by any sort of consensus or prior discussion (see above) and hark of making a point.

For now, I will grant keeping the tag for more input. However, unless it can be justified why the neutrality tag is necessary (given updates to accommodate your POV) or if a groundswell supports your position, I will restore the status quo shortly. And I've made numerous edits throughout and haven't violated WP:3RR (methinks): given your behaviour, I will report any possible contraventions of WP:3RR or Wikiquette. E Pluribus Anthony 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the current version is neutral enough. It first gives a broad definition, states variations of this definition, and then gives one of the definitions most people would agree on. The only thing I'd advise you two to change is maybe to quote the variations of the definition after the list of commonly included countries.
Apart from that, be nice to each other. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I categorically agree with everything that Nightstallion says (at least what he said at 06:50 on 9th January 2006). Let's play nice! =] //Big Adamsky 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this? I would be happier with this, and as we are searchinmg for compromise I hope this is acceptable, SqueakBox 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's neutral enough, but has emerged (has it?) from the revert war in fairly ragged shape. --Yath 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Ns, BA, and even SB's prior version. I think we're going overboard. From a style perspective, and while I appreciate the effort, I think an atypical table upfront looks rather horrid: look at Europe, for instance, where lists/tables are further along. Remember: there's a consensus as to what the prevailing definition is (e.g., Webster's/Oxford dictionaries) ... it just so happens that the term can be ambiguous (c.f. Middle America) and other defs should be noted with the common one as before.

Moreover, listing countries upfront belies notions that aren't just geopolitical but physiogeographic (e.g., isthmus, as per SEW); so, those references to Mexican states (political subdivisions) should be moved down and replaced with "southeastern Mexico" or similar.

Either of these work for me (in order, but perhaps with variation):

• [3]
• [4]
• [5], or current

or variation. And I maintain that none of this has to do with neutrality but about style, and the tag should go. If anything, having the geopolitical notions upfront, superceding others, imparts a POV. E Pluribus Anthony 07:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the tag is not needed (and IMO never was, really), but (as per above/options) reserve the right to edit and will shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Central Americans are not North Americans!

We are our 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

• Comment. Curuiously this IP address is located in Ontario, Canada not in Central America. Ras Billy I 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is for the peoples of Central America to decide their own fate but that means all the people of Central America and not just those with Indian blood! The white and black folk who live here also have the right to have a say. Personally speaking I would love to see a united Americas as we clearly all live in one continent from Canadato Argentina/Chile, but it is clear that the US dont want a United America, thus all the Central American and Mexican and Caribbean peoples should be looking south for leadership and not North to the US as we especially in Central America have done for too long. The Monroe Doctrine of US dominance had its advantages when it was the choice between US or European doctrine but is now well outdated and needs to be consigned to the junkyard of history. Central America is central america and as long as we split this one continenet we should do so into 3 bits, north, south and central (which should certainly be Mexico too). This is what the world does, hence North America, Central America and South America, and wikipedia should follow the world not the other way around. Ras Billy I 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about the fact that black and white folk from Central America also have the right to decide for themselves. Sorry, if that offended you. I appreciate you seeing this from my point of view. Thank you!

-Tito A. Martinez

How much of this is political or sociological? And does "North America" or "North American" mean the same thing in English as in Spanish? What does the Spanish Wikipedia's América Central say? --Wing Nut 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish says Mexico is in North America. es:América del Norte says North America borders Central America, which indicates that indeed we Central Americans consider ourselves to be Central Americans not North Americans but that we do consider Mexico to be in North America. Ras Billy I 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The "human geography" section ought to make mention of this. I would do it if I knew exactly how central americans viewed this. Is it considered a separate continent, part of South America, or what? Example:

"Spanish-speaking residents of Central America often view it as a separate continent, with North America consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. alone."

--Yath 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

Variably defined, the geographic region constitutes the southern portion of the North American continent.

It seems there are competing definitions of "where Central America is". Let's start with where we all agree: it is in the Americas, right?

The UN geoscheme (an article I just made ;-) distinguishes between Central America (subregion) and Northern America (subregion). --Wing Nut 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some help creating a table comparing English terms (like North America and "Northern America") to Spanish terms like Norteamérica and América del Norte. --Wing Nut 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tito A. Martĩnez is right. If Central America was North America it wouldn't be called Central America. By adding falsehoods to the encyclopedia you make it a laughing stock. TV Genius 01:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making it difficult to assume WP:FAITH. You won't even accept compromise, you don't use edit summaries, and your participation in the discussion consists of this single comment.

Aside from your wikiquette, you should note that I don't accept the splitting off of Central America from North America for the following reasons. First, it is normal for English speakers to consider Central America a part of North America. There have been statements to the effect that speakers of Spanish have a different view. However, this is an English-language encyclopedia, and while usages in other languages can merit a mention, they cannot override the primary English usage. Second, if you do split CA off from NA, then what continent is it in? South America? Central America? No continent? It doesn't make sense. --Yath 22:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What compromise? I dont see you compromising. if you want to assume bad faith go do so, it doesnt appear that wiki policy will support you in your supposed loss of good faith so I will assume it was a comment whose end is to provoke. Which is what the opening statement is as well. I have removed the opening statement and left the statement lower down, the opening looks terrible with this statement of the belief of some geographers stuck in the opening about the region as if the controversial belief of some geographers is the most important thing we can say about the region. That is not POV. TVGH 22:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The compromise is It is considered by some geographers to be part of North America. That's a compromise because some editors believe it is part of North America, and some that it is not. It lies between the two extreme viewpoints. --Yath 00:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading this page made me realize how ethno-centric some people can be, Central America is a historical area, which was autonomous during Spanish rule and where people speak a distinctive type of Spanish, if people in the US (whose knowledge of geography is precarious) think Central America is part of North America it is purely because of ignorance. Besides it was Latin people who conquered the American continent, we named and invented this continent. There is no compromise on that. --Pabloalbv 3:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Socially, culturally and politically the divide is along the Rio Grande as the difference between Mexico and the US is enormous. Geographically it is clearly one continent (as if not where do you divide it?). The US folk have confused things by calling themselves Americans (so I was being called American in Guatemala, to which I responded I am not American but you are) and claiming their sovereign territory is the United States of America which is an insult to the Latinos as it implies Latin America is the Divided States of America or that all the Americas belongs to the US (interesting they were putting this lie out more than 2 centuries ago). Personally I think what geoographers think of CA is given far too much space, it utterly dominates the article which could do with a thorough rewrite, hence the POVG tag, SqueakBox 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was educated in the USA and Argentina. To me, "North America" generally means the U.S. and Canada. In a geological context, it includes the northern part of Mexico which is on that continental plate. On a map showing "North America" and "South America" then Central America's tapering shape looks better as part of the northern section, but marking Central America separately is more accurate. Sociologicaly and politically, South American countries are focused on each other (particularly with Brazil as everyone's neighbor), while the countries which are former British and Spanish colonies are dominant groups in North and Central America. It has been politically useful for Mexico to have close relations with the USA, but in what contexts is that relevant? If grouped by politics, on what continent are Cuba and Venezuela this year? (SEWilco 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

The economic and cultural ties between Mexico and the US are very relevant in defining what Central America is aswell as the "sociological and political reasons mantain south american countries focused on each other". Historically, Mexico and Central America have never been socially nor politically united. The best example of this is that since the Independence of Mexico, the Central American provinces decided to separate from Mexico. Years later those countries tried to fund a Central American Society, but Mexico refused to take part. Neither Mexicans nor Central Americans have considered Mexico as a part of Central America, not historically not in the present time. Another example is the creation of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) bewteen Canada, US and Mexico and the recently signed Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which point out the increasing political bonds between the three countries. Remember that the US signed a different agreement called CAFTA + DR (Central American Free Trade Agreement plus Dominican Republic). It is clear that from a economic and political point of view, to the US, Mexico is part of North America. I think that the main problem here is that some users from the US does not want Mexico to be considered North America. At least I can "sense" that, anybody else can? It is a political point of view, perhaps valid, but it should not be counted to write an article. All of this is important because the term Central America should be defined by the most common and present use. I do not agree sub-dividing North America under the UN geoscheme because it clearly does not represent what Central America means to the most of the people in the world. I think it is very important to point that historically neither Central Americans nor Mexicans have considered Mexico as a part of Central America (politically, economically). AlexCovarrubias 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where CA is more focussed on the US than either Venezuela or Cuba is that their is a direct road connection between Panama and the US, SqueakBox 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia should not contain original work. Thus, the question is not what English speaking people should consider to be the continent scheme, but what English speaking people do consider to be the continent scheme. According to the continent article, "The 7-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, China, and most native English-speaking countries." The said model considers Central America to be a part of North America. Britannica seems to agree, but obviously, if you have sources that contradict this take on how English speakers percieve the continents, please do mention them. Anyhow, I look forward to hearing your opinions to this POV. Cheers, -- Where 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on we are not writing the encyclopedia of English speaking people but of all knowledge. I get really irritated when users try to restrict or tone down Jimbo Wales' vision of the encyclopedia of all knowledge to something far less such as the encyclopedia of the English speaking people's of the world, a project I for one would have nothing to do with. Fortunately Wales owns Wikipedia and so we must follow his grander vision. Policy does not in practice justify putting limits on that vision such as ignoring all the non English speaking people in the world and such toning down of the wikipedia vision by others needs opposing energetically. What Spanish speaking people think is equally relevant and I would defy anyone to point to a policy that contradicts this, SqueakBox 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

However, this is the English Wikipedia, and while it should represent all points of views and point out controversies where they exist, it should focus primarily on what English-speakers think, in my opinion. -- Where 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can't seem to find anything on Central America being its own continent even for non-English speakers. What are you referring to? -- Where 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Central America does not have to be a continent, it can just be its own little place. Next, I also see that every place on Earth has their own little definition of what CA is. The EU does not include Belize into its defintion, the UN includes Mexico, etc. If everyone else has their own definition and is arguing on what is the proper definition, wouldn't the best way to resolve it, be to ask the people who are actually from there, what they think and use that as the universal definition? Interesting, isn't it, how people think they know more about you than you? Have you ever been in that situation where someone is correcting you on something that relates to you and you know far more about it than them? It is like a person correcting someone else on how to speak or pronounce a certain word in that other person's native language when they don't speak it themselves. My point is, that the best way to settle this dispute, is to accept the Central American definition of Central America. Not the UN definiton, or EU definition, or North American definition, or whaterver, but the Central American definition, which is probably the most accurate one because its made by Central America. The Central American defintion of Central America...I can't believe that people won't see that.

Tito A. Martinez

What English speakers think is irrelevant, this is the wikipedia in English not the wikipedia of English speakers. I think all those who live now in Central America have an equal right to those from Central America to define this term....and Central America sounds right to me, North America doesnt, that is indeed how it is seen in this part of the world, SqueakBox 02:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that you would say "What English speakers think is irrelevant". The last time I checked, my country, Belize, is an English' speaking country. We are part of the Central American subcontinent and so is Mexico, regardless of what the The EU or UN's definition is. This is a geographical fact, just look at the map people!!! 20 November 2006 07:07 (UTC)

My apologies and you are of course right. There are English speakers in the Bay Islands of Honduras as well. Truer to say English speakers not in or from Central America.

That revision is appreciated. Whether you speak Spanish, English, Garifuna or an indigenous language if you are from one of the 8 central american countries you are central american.

You mean 7 countries, thank you. --Supaman89

Some revisions

I made two changes that clarify the article, imo. The first was to include Belize and Panama on the list of countries, but to note that they are sometimes left out because they weren't members of the Federal Republic.

The second was to remove the errors related to the Central American Parliament. Panama _is_ a member of that body, Costa Rica isn't (yet). That is said on the article on the body, and was verified by visiting the Parlacen website. oknazevad 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Common usage in Belize

While I agree that Belize was not part of the original Central America, ever since it began to move toward independence it has been government policy to insist on our Central Americanness, despite the Guatemalan claim. Most government documents and common usage put in their addresses "Belize, C.A.", the C.A. standing for Central America. Just wanted to clarify Belize's position on this.--206.26.199.146 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Every Latin American know that. Central America is from Guatemala to Panama. Period. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

6 according to most Guatemalans, SqueakBox 22:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cities

Please source the city stats, San pedro is at least .5 million and La Ceiba 0.25 million, so sources neede, SqueakBox 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

hey its haley saying hi to joel so yeah your a loser hi