Talk:Central America/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

averting another edit war

Although I initially reverted AlexCovarrubias's edit, because I didn't agree with changing "Physical geography" to "Geography" when there's a "Human geography" section later, the area figure of 524,000 should stand because it matches the CIA World Factbook estimate, and, unless other sources say otherwise, that's the best figure we have. Also, I see there is reason to suspect that User:69.158.58.75 is a sock for the blocked Corticopia, having just read User talk:AlexCovarrubias. Feeeshboy (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you "defend" the anon IP because YOU ARE the same person, you are Corticopia. Edit pattern doesn't lie (Star Trek?). Corticopia's forced vacation time suspectfully is the same of yours in the same period. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the prior figure, per Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (592,017 km2), p. 226. Other commentary is rather pointless, even paranoid. 69.158.58.75 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to ignore AlexCovarrubias's baseless accusations for the time being because this is an inappropriate forum for them and because they do not in any way show good faith or contribute to improving this article, which is all I'm trying to do here. To the anon user: you need to back up that figure with a citation in the text of the article, not just cite it here. Now, even if that source is cited, there's an inconsistency in the article, in that the Physical Geography section defines Central America as including parts of Mexico, and the remainder of the article, including the info box on the right and the table in the Human geography section, have the smaller total area figure, which excludes the Mexican states that could be considered part of CA. Also, the map in the infobox excludes the Mexican states. This makes sense, in a way, because Central America as a political entity is somewhat different from Central America as a geographic entity, but if the article is going to keep that difference, I think it needs to be explained more clearly. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing grammar

The main article contains the following paragraph:

"It was until 1991 that the integration agenda was completed with the creation of the SICA, Sistema para la Integración Centroamericana or System for the Central American Integration. The SICA provided a clear legal base to avoid discrepancies between the member states. The SICA membership includes the 7 nations of Central America plus the Dominican Republic, a state that is part of the Caribbean."

But I can't make heads or tails of it. Did the author really mean to say this? If you want to write it this way, the English language needs a negative before the conjunction "until."

A better construction would read:

"It took until 1991 to complete the integration agenda envisioned by the creation of the SICA, * * * * * "

Whoever locked the main article should unlock it, and fix it as described above, or at least take some remedial English composition classes. 216.99.201.1 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexicans are known for a confusing use of hasta, which elsewhere means "until", but in Mexico means "not until". Maybe a Mexican saw a Spanish-English dictionary that said "hasta = until". He or she should have read http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=hasta (1.d) 167.107.191.217 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

map needed

This article ought to begin with a simple map locating each country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Mike 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. A simple political map like [1]

Rearrange, and biodiversity focus

Central America is know for its biodiversity, and the article does not have a lot of pictures nor information about the rich biodiversity in all the Central American republics, including and but not limited to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. I will be working on this article for the next couple of days any questions or concerns write them here or you may contact me directly. Help is greatly appreciated, and encouraged. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not limited to" if those 7 republics are the only Central American nations. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

All those countries have descent to large biodiversity. House1090 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's looking good so far, although I'd love to replace the sentence about where the biodiversity is concentrated (information which is reflected in the table) with a few sentences on the region's unique ecosystems (including the offshore reefs). Feeeshboy (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add as much as you like, the article needs to focus more on geography and biodiversity, which is what Central A. is known for. House1090 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion?

A user just decided to revert my sourced edit with the stated reason as "block evasion." I have no idea what this is about. That being said, is there some issue you have with the edit? K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that's about, but I think the "Usage" section sufficiently covers the various alternate definitions of CA, including the UN's version. The lead should only cover the most salient and relevant definition, which excludes Mexico. Feeeshboy (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Feeeshboy. There's no need to add that. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend toward "inclusiveness" on questions like this, but I can see how it could mislead readers if not done carefully. I really just want to find some way of quickly summarizing how this section applies to Mexico. Would you be ok with saying, "Mexico is usually excluded, but this can vary"? K. the Surveyor (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Mexico is not part of Central America, this has been long discussed. The "UN scheme" you talk about was created merely to conduct statistical research and it states that "in no way it implies a political or other type of association". Saying that the UN says Mexico is a CA country then is biased and a very wrong misleading expression. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it state this? Please point out the location. Furthermore I am not convinced that statistics are so irrelevant. It would be easier to dismiss if you could point to a UN source that stated that Mexico was part of North America. That would indeed relegate the geoscheme to being a marginal technical construct. But if for the purposes of the whole UN, Mexico is in central America, that is obviously important.

And if all this has been discussed time and time again, then why have the sources clearing up the matter not been added to the page? It is most peculiar. Finally, there are certainly from a geophysical standpoint parts of Mexico in CA, as this page already says. If nothing else, the lede should say, "Small parts of Mexico are geophysically considered part of Central America, but not politically." This is not too much space to devote! K. the Surveyor (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no needed. Already in the article. Just some authors (who?) consider physiographically a part of Mexico being in Central America, which is already indicated in the article in the appropiate section. It is not included in the lead because it would be undue weight.

The UN geoscheme, more precisely the Statistical Division of the UN (Not the UN per se) clearly indicates the following[2]:

The geographical regions and groupings of countries and areas included at this site are not comprehensive but only a selection which are or may be used in the compilation of statistics.

The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.

Some persons (I mean a person) that are itchy about the fact that Mexico is part of North America use this "argument" to try to include the whole of Mexico or try to associate Mexico with Central America, which is just not unnatural to Mexicans but also to Central Americans. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I recall there being some controversy on this issue in the past, but apart from conflicts with previous editors, and apart from any potential POV forking, which I think you and I can, together, make sure this article stays clear of, why do you have such strong opinions on this point? I supported removing what was in the lead today, but the undue weight of that addition had a lot to do with the fact that it was too long. I could support a mention that some view parts of Mexico as geographically belonging to the region. Consider this: of the 5 bullet points in the "Usage" section, 4 of those alternatives include those parts of Mexico. I think we should at least consider how the lead might take this into account. Feeeshboy (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you in this =/ let me tell you why. Of all the possible topics on which Mexico could be considered in Central America, just one stands upfront: physiographically (and that is by some authors, meaning that's not even universally agreed). So not politically, not geopolitically, not culturally, not geographically (as the vast majority of sources describing CA do not include Mexico) not even historically (CA broke apart from Northern America, the America Septentrional meaning Mexico). So saying that in the lead is not appropitate, it is misleading and it is clearly giving too much weight (I mean it is the lead! :P) to a concept that limits itself to physiography. If I have a strong point is only because the point itself is strong, I consider. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are at least two persons around here who are way too obsessive about how to describe Mexicos relation to the continent. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, but if you're taking about me at least you could say it directly. I'm not obssesive, I'm just trying to avoid an obsessive person from imposing his POV. The obssesive one is the other party that, used sockpuppetry, anonymous IPs and other tricks... for about 5 years also! At least give me the credit of being around here for 5 years, using my real name and not hidding from scrutinity. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing a political POV just as much as Corticopia is - it just happens to be the opposite one.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, you guys will have to work this out amongst yourselves. Unfortunately I don't have time for extended discussions like this. My recommendation is to at least have the lead reflect what the article already says on southernmost Mexico. I think this can be done quite easily with a small addition. But I can't stick around any more. Best wishes! K. the Surveyor (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor-quality edition

I've been reverting a new addition which was written with a very poor-quality style by House1090. The most important issues with his edit are the use of weasel words, the lack of in-line citations and a failed verification. It reads like an magazzine, something which is not right for WP.

I have edited the paragraph, cutting everything that is not referenced and putting it "on hold" with the comment code (that makes it invisible) until the user fixes those issues. I've asked for the above problems to be fixed, but nothing happened.

He keeps reverting. Seems he doesn't get it. This is his intented addition [3]. Can somebody please explain all this to him? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.30.169.45, 25 August 2011

The page for Central America has the following lines, "Central America consists of the seven states of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Central America is part of the Mesoamerican biodiversity hotspot, which extends from Northern Guatemala through central Panama.[5] It borders Mexico to the north, the Caribbean Sea to the east, the North Pacific Ocean to the west; and Colombia to the south-east." The second sentence, the one starting, "It border Mexico to the north...," should be changed to "It is bordered by Mexico to the north...". The sentence makes it seem like it borders Mexico to the north, when in fact it is south of Mexico, that it borders the Caribbean Sea to the east, when in fact it is to the west of the Caribbean Sea, etc... The way I've suggested would be more clear and grammatically correct. 174.30.169.45 (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to do it KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

The vast majority of English language speakers in North America use American English. American English should be used for all Wikipedia articles related to North America, including Central America and the Caribbean, except as follows:

• North American English
  • American English
  • Bermudian English in Bermuda.
  • Canadian English in Canada.
• Caribbean English in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
  • Bahamian English in the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  • Trinidadian English in Trinidad and Tobago

Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Central America in North America ???? incredible!!!=

I am panamanian and i didn't know i was living in North America!!!!!!. I thought I was south american instead. Well, how different are english people concepts of America (the continent). Only for your knowledege, we don't consider Central America to be in North America, so if you visit this region don't even call anybody North American here.--88.6.167.20 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/world/americas/peace-corps-cuts-back-in-honduras-guatemala-and-el-salvador.html Peace Corps Cuts Back in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador ... The increasing drug and organized crime violence in Central America has led the Peace Corps to pull out of Honduras and stop sending new ... December 22, 2011 by Randal C. Archibold

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Mexican Drug War related. 99.181.132.91 (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)