Jump to content

Talk:North America/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

imperialism

Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

{{Edit semi-protected}} As of 10-10-2010, the Netherlands Antilles have ceased to exist. The islands of Curaçao and Sint Maarten have become autonomous states within the Kingdom of the Netherlands (comparable to Aruba), the islands of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius have become special municipalities within the Netherlands. This means the section Countries and territories should be changed: the line Netherlands Antilles in the table should be removed, and Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the special municipalities of the Netherlands should be added. Bondke (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI. siafu (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It's true, the Netherlands Antilles have dissolved. See e.g. [1], [2]. Spacepotato (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed Netherland Antilles and added Curacao and Sint Maarten. I am not sure about the other entities because they are just "special municipalities". Do we have to add them? That means they are the Netherlands right? I mean that means they are considered the country of the Netherlands, right? Do we have to add them too? Guate-man (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They should be added as well, since they have a similar status in the Netherlands that Saint Pierre and Miquelon have in France. SInce you added the others, please add Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius as well. --Jayron32 03:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I added BES islands to mantain similar pattern with the article List of countries of North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guate-man (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Paleohistory

This seems an odd name for a sub-section title. 'Paleohistory' by a definition [[3]] I found on the web means a 'history of fossils' - shouldn't really be included here in the way that it is. If we mean 'Geologic(al) history' why not use that term? Also the statement that 'N America is the source of much of what humanity knows about geologic periods' is hardly one worth making. One can say the same about all the other continents and ocean basins and then you've got everything that we know about geologic(al) periods. None particularly stands out more than any other - they all have their stories to reveal. Geopersona (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

USA population appears to be off by a lot

according to the US census bureau population clock the USA didn't reach 310 million people until late 2010. How does it have 314 million people in 2008 ? The Canada population clock is about 34.3 million in October 2010 does that mean Canada's population should be listed at 35 or 36 million ? Either way the US has 8-9 times more people than Canada not 9.5-10.Grmike (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)grmike

Area

There is a discrepancy of over 200,000 km2 between the area of North America given in the lead paragraph and in the subsection on Countries and territories. The lead paragraph has no reference for the source of the area. There is a need to reconcile the two numbers: either one is wrong and the other right, or there are different criteria used for calculation the values, in which case that needs to be explained.Silverchemist (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Country Grouping/Mexico

As I explained in my edits, I moved Mexico to "Middle/Central America" and deleted references that were not supportive of text dictating Mexico as part of "North America". They all referred to Mexico being part of the extended definition of North America but not part of the "three county" definition. Quite frankly, until reading this article, I have never heard of a North America only inclusive of the three northernmost countries (with or without Greenland). The North American Free Trade Agreement is not a good example as it is only named so as the countries are on North America (the extended definition). It does not seem to support that there is only a three country North America. I have however heard of Northern America, and this is the term most people are familiar with and that is the most common. Sources on this article even support my statement. In the English-speaking world this is by far the most common definition. Thus, because Wikipedia advocates for what is most common, I moved Mexico to "Middle/Central America", where it is most commonly placed. If the United Nations geoscheme includes Mexico in Central/Middle America and not in "North(ern) America" - keeping in mind that Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are part of the UN and no doubt have a say in the scheme - this format should be followed; after all, it seems to be the most reliable source. 08OceanBeachS.D. 06:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed several times in the past. Mexico is part of a geopolitical region also called North America within the North American country. Term "Middle America" is really obscure and rarely used. In fact, "Middle America" first common use in English refers to an area or a socioeconomic category within the USA. Also, no reliable, reputable geographical source describes Mexico as in "Middle America".
Most geographical reliable publications locate Mexico in North America, and accurately describe is the southern portion of North America.
Central America is also another well-defined georegion consisting in 7 nations: Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras. This common and very extended definition is all over Wikipedia's articles, categories and the like.
As for the UN geosheme, it is a no reliable geographical publication since its arbitrary grouping was devised purely for statistical convinience, as stated by the UN Statistics Division:
According to the United Nations, 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.[4]
It also contains several weird groupings not only in the Americas but in other world areas. That's why it is not widely used here in Wikipedia. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the rapid response. However, simply because there was a previous consensus, does not mean that consensus can't be obtained again. I am fine with re-instating Mexico in North America if there are proper and reliable references. As previously stated, they all referred to Mexico being part of the extended definition of North America but not part of the "three county" definition. The three definition concept does not seem to coincide with common usage, especially in Northern America. But again, it is never impossible to be proved wrong by a reliable source. 08OceanBeachS.D.
(e.c.) Merriam-Webster describes North America as the whole continent north of the Isthmus of Panama [5] [6], as does Encyclopædia Britannica [7] [8]. Re: I have however heard of Northern America, and this is the term most people are familiar with and that is the most common. Sources on this article even support my statement. In the English-speaking world this is by far the most common definition. I find these claims hard to believe. I've almost never heard the term "Northern America" and doubt it "is the term most people are familiar with". I also note that enither Merriam-Webster nor Encyclopædia Britannica have an entry on "Northern America". Pfly (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
While I myself had never heard the term Northern America until I arrived on WikiPedia, I can't say that it is less familiar than the three country definition of North America. 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The text in italics I posted above are a quote from you. At the top of this section you wrote: "I have however heard of Northern America, and this is the term most people are familiar with and that is the most common". Your latest comment sounds like a contradiction of your earlier comment. I'm left confused. Pfly (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I was aware. I was saying that in regard to the three country definition of North America, I have, however, heard of the term Northern America, which I felt (in regard to the three country definition) "most people are familiar with and that is the most common." 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"Northern America" is not a widely-used term. It was created by the UN to differenciate the new grouping of the US+Canada from the conventional North America (meaning continent). AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It isn't, but it certainly seems more common than the three country definition. Which is what I have been saying or trying to convey. 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
(e.c.) The three country usage for "North America" is not that uncommon. This page already has 6 or 7 references about it. In addition, the EPA and WWF, when describing ecoregions, both use the term "North America" as meaning Mexico, the US, and Canada [9] [10] (the 2nd, WWF link defines ecoregional "realm", of which North America is one and "Latin America and the Caribbean" is another. These may not be great examples, I merely mention them to show three country usage beyond this page's already sufficient references. I can't prove that when describing the three-country sense the term "North America" is more common than "Northern America", but I'll be willing to bet it is. Not sure how one would determine which is more common though. Pfly (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right. North America is a contient, but it is also a region and there are a lot of examples of this usage. Just use Google! In fact if you type "North America" you will see tons of websites using the term both for referring to the continent (from Alaska to Panama) and others referring to the region (from Canada thru Mexico). Also almost all geographical reliable sources describe North America as containing Canada, USA, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Those references will support the prose as they only include/show the three countries and not the whole continent, unlike the ones I removed. Thank you, Pfly, for taking the time to find those! I will be sure and add them so that hopefully no one else gets confused and make a note on the title that "North America" is being used in reference to those three countries and islands, etc. 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see you have already added them. Thank you, I will just add the note now and we should be good! 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad to see we can work this out! As an aside, I just discovered that Britannica does have an entry Anglo-America, referring to the English-speaking part (US and Canada), in contrast to Latin America (Mexico and south into South America). Pfly (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
One final bit before I go to bed. I found this passage from Britannica interesting regarding this discussions: "According to some authorities, North America begins not at the Isthmus of Panama but at the narrows of Tehuantepec, with the intervening region called Central America. Under such a definition, part of Mexico must be included in Central America, although that country lies mainly in North America proper. To overcome this anomaly, the whole of Mexico, together with Central and South American countries, also may be grouped under the name Latin America, with the United States and Canada referred to as Anglo-America. This cultural division is a very real one; yet Mexico and Central America (including the Caribbean) are bound to the rest of North America by strong ties of physical geography. Greenland also is culturally divided from, but physically close to, North America." Pfly (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting definition that makes perfect sense! I expanded on the note and added a citation supplied by Alex. We should be all set. Thanks for your time! 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This website is also interesing, it describes the North American region [11] I have already added it to the article. As for what Britannica says, that is not new, well at least to me that has been around this article since 2005 :P hehe. Some geographers (not all, since this is not a mainstream view, that's why Britannica states "according to some") describe physiographically North America as ending at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. South of that should be Central America. But that's physiographically (the physical description of the characteristics of the terrain). Geographically the main and vast majority of the sources (if not all) both reliable and informal, describe Central America as grouped in the table in this article. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 08:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, though to physiographically I might add ecologically. Pfly (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Greenland is not culturally divided from North America, it is highly culturally linked to North America. The language of Greenland, Greenlandic, is closely allied to Inuktitut, one of the official the languages of Nunavut, and a language of legislation, which is a political division of Canada. Further, Alaska, Nunavut and Greenland share a common cultural heritage. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well i feel I landed here too late since it is all solved and I'm glad. But I think there's no need to add a hatnote because no user could be confused since the whole article is talking about how North America is a continent, duh! Karnifro (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is about the continent. However in the countries table where it is titled North America, it only includes a handful of countries, far less than what the article has been talking about. So that hatnote is necessary to prevent confusion. If I was the only one confused, there are bound to be others. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Population figures

Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria says nothing about tables or charts[12]. While prose is generally preferred, in some instances such as economic comparisons, populations, and land areas, tables provide a clearer view for the reader. In fact, tables exist elsewhere in this article. While I don't discount the need for prose in this section, I do believe it should be augmented by a table or chart which can present information in clearer and greater detail. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I will revert my edit. It was just the impression I got from a GA review on an article I previously nominated and achieved status; without numerous tables. When the time comes we can let the reviewer decided if its necessary or not. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you by chance happen to know how to make the table float right? 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism with quoted text

User OceanBeachSD added a citation needed tag of some portion of text I added. After seeing this I had to add the proper reference. I added a direct quote from a book. Because he doesn't like what the book says he complained the source was in Spanish, which is NOT wrong nor banned in Wikipedia. I already told him this, even in his talk page. But he keeps reverting it or trying to rewording it even if the source directly supports the idea that the whole continent is dividing into three main economic areas. That's the main idea, supported by the figures and sources in this sub-article.

This is just pure vandalism. You can't remove or reword a direct citation. I have fixed and re-added the quote. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the text I added, now with direct quotation from a book:
The North American economy is well defined into three main economic areas[1], the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), and the Central American Common Market (CACM)[1].
{{cite book|last=De la Torre|first=Miguel|title=Sociología y Profesión|year=2008|publisher=Nuevo León Autonomous University (UANL)|location=Monterrey|isbn=9702400511|coauthors=Benigno Benavides, José Saldaña, Jesús Fernández|page=116|chapter=Las profesiones en México: condiciones económicas, culturales y sociales|quote=La economía de América del Norte se encuentra bien definida y estructurada en tres principales áreas económicas: el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), el CARICOM y el Mercado Común Centroamericano}}
The book reinforces the idea that the sub-section already expands about. There are three main economic areas in the North American continent. There might be other FTA, but as the source says the main economic areas are three, this is supported by integration of the economies and the trade figures. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
yep that's what it says..."The North American economy is well defined and structured in three main economic areas". So whats the problem here? As you say per WP:NONENG no need for the ref to be in english - but perhaps a traslation would be good for the quote (if we even need a quote) .Moxy (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow I'm surprised you found a source well done. I don't see any problem with it being included and I don't understand why it was removed by Oceanbeach dude. It needs to remain in the article because it is important. Karnifro (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with it's inclusion. But it wasn't made clear that the text was a quote. It needs to be quoted and adequately translated following the WP:CITE guidelines. It would also be better to look for an English source, as this is English Wikipedia. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added the English translation of the quote but the guidelines for citing foreign language sources are not quite complete. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I also know some good Spanish and the original piece of text added by Alexcovarrubias is a literal translation. Uhmm I also think that there's not need for quotation marks, only when quoting what a person say. Karnifro (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to edit the article myself but now I can't because a semi-protection is active. And you're right, adding quotation marks is standard use only when quoting a person. Inline citations from books or other sources do not need this. Greetings. 109.200.11.131 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

New languages map, please?

Languages spoken in the Americas

This map is terrible terrible looking, too sharpy edges and pixelated. Its colors are yuck c'mon! Don't you see it? We need a new map. And make it one that is focused in North America only. What do you think? I think I can try making a new map but I'm not good at that. I only use Microsoft Paint lol. Karnifro (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree! It should focus only on North America. When it's a small thumbnail like that it makes it hard to distinguish colors - unfortunately it's the only map of it's kind right now. Surely we can find someone with the proper software to recreate it. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this map is not very good in terms of colors and general design. Worse, it does not seem to be based on any reliable source. It appears to have been derived from this map, which was simply created by a Spanish Wikipedia editor without citing any source. It's not uncommon on Wikipedia for maps to not cite sources, but they should, especially maps like this one. Can anyone find a source that could be used to make a new map? I try to look around when I get a chance. I suspect there are many sources out there, and likely a lot of disagreement on the details. Perhaps an ideal approach would be to find several maps like this, published by reliable sources, and make a new map based on all of them. I'd be willing to try making a new map myself, if we can find some strong sources to back it up. Pfly (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, fake maps are a problem, a very common problem. Some users make up maps with false statistics. That's why we're required to add a proper source. Those maps can be reported and deleted. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, this is a map of current languages, of course. My quick start of a search turned up lots of "pre-Columbian" language maps, which are not what we want, at least not for remaking this map. Pfly (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Before I leave for a while, here's an interesting site mapping English dialects north of Mexico—but also showing areas where native languages dominate. While not exactly a reliable source itself, it cites many other sources that look worth checking out: http://aschmann.net/AmEng/ Pfly (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I can make the map, I've some experience in that. I think the best is to start with a simple map with the official languages or de facto main languages of every country. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That might be best. Trying to map native languages is not likely to be easy or simple, but doing it by country should be easy enough. Not sure quite how to handle Boliva, which apparently has 37 official languages! Pfly (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Er, PS, which continent is Bolivia part of? :-) I had been thinking of making new maps for both continents, to replace this map of both. Thus my thinking of Bolivia. Pfly (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe their is a map of United States language use based on the census on Commons. This could also be used as a platform to develop a new map. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Another random thought. If mapping official or de facto languages by nation, I wonder if Canada should be shown by province, as Quebec and Nunavut are obvious special cases. Pfly (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think states and provinces of Canada and the United States - given that they are larger than most countries on the continent - should be shown by since, as the case is with Quebec and Louisiana, there isn't always a de facto language. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm thinking about it: If mapped, US states with clear non-English aspects would seem to include Hawaii (Hawaiian and English are official), Louisiana, and those with significant Spanish speakers—New Mexico, California, Texas, and Arizona (all over 20%), and perhaps Florida (18.7% our page says). Other notable cases might include Alaska (5.2% Native American spoken), and New Mexico's 4% Navajo. I'm not saying these should be mapped—it's up to the mapmaker. Also, many Mexican states are larger than US states, in terms of population. Hawaii's population is about 1.3 million, Louisiana is about 4.5 million. Compare Chiapas at 3.9 million, which has significant numbers of people speaking Native American languages. Anyway, there's a slippery slope. I'm not sure how I would deal with it, mapwise. If you're going to make it, AlexCovarrubias, it's up to you! Just thought I'd post these thoughts. Pfly (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember that language is not limited by borders. Having a map that shows the geography of each language in blotches and swirls (like the current one) is much more helpful to the reader than one showing the predominant languages in each "state" or province. I do agree, however, that the current map needs to be revised and clipped down to North America. Rennell435 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that a pie chart is better. Mapping the regions where rare languages or small communities speak rare languages is very difficult. We can use the statistics and make a chart pie. I think it is better. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's inherently wrong with having a language map for both north and south america, it just seems that this one had some very odd mistakes and/or is unclear, according to this map austronesian languages are very prominent in Northern California and the surrounding areas, what? And what's that lighter blue in the southwest united states, is that left over from something else AlphaNumerical1 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

GPD at PPP: Yet another edit war by 08 OceanBeach SD...

It is highly noticeable that user 08 OceanBeach SD has started edit wars all over the article in the last days or weeks, with very weak agruments because of his bias against Mexico. The last one and more obviously disturbing was that he added a "citation needed" tag, and after I added a source, he refused to accept it and kept rewording and deleting it. This is due to a personal problem he has with me. His bias towards Mexico is clearly shameful.

Today he just reverted a GDP table that showed current statistics based in Gross Domestic Product at Purchase Power Parity. As its name indicates this economic formula (PPP) was created especially for comparing and contrasting national economies since GDP expressed in nominal terms does not accurately reflects reality due to the different exchange rates between national currencies and international dollars, inflation, current prices of goods and other economical variables. GDP nominal lists create disparities that cannot be ignored and aren't helpful in economic terms. GPD at PPP sorts this out (that's why it is used and why it was created!), reflecting much more accurately the reality of national economies of countries.

This is a comparative table, so it makes perfect sense to use GDP at PPP.

OceanBeach SD edit summary was that "using nominal is more common" which is not only dubbious and a mere personal POV, but in this case (personal hate towards Mexico) was because in nominal GDP Mexico is 3rd in the table, while in PPP is 2nd. That's all, that's the truth. His editorial behaviour clearly show his bias towards Mexico. He's also adding a lot of citation needed tags when Wikipedia clearly tell us that "you don't need to quote that the sky is blue".

AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah GDP in PPP terms very more useful. For what I've seen here in wiki short listings of GDP are always in PPP because of its technical merit and usefulness. GDP PPP more acurate and better than nominal USD terms. I can make the list again if you want. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok I cannot edit. Article is now protected and I have no account logged in right now. Maybe later. But GDP PPP must remain for better. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand you dude, I sometimes forget to log in and I edit anonymously but I never have problems in the articles I edit!!! (I'm not making fun of you) Karnifro (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you can't edit while not logged. This article had to be semi-protected due to heavy vandalism and the use of anonymous IP sockpuppets in the past. But if you have an account you should always use it, that way it will keep record of all your activy and contributions which is neat. If you don't have an account you should definitely register one, if that's what you want, but there's a lot of articles that can't be edited unless you're registered. Thanks! AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I just added the appropiate reference for the GDP list. When I created the table I used statistics from the article List of countries by GDP (PPP) and I forgot to add the source. Seems a little hypocritical that OceanBean first added a citation needed in the table, but then decided to replace it with GDP in nominal terms (with references) instead of just adding a reference for GDP @ PPP. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhmm I don't want to give my opinion about the personal conflict that user has with you I just want to say that I think GDP in PPP makes more sense. Several Central American and caribbean nations have very low dollar exchange rates and also PPP is used in international statistics. So let's keep the GDP in PPP list. Karnifro (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hardly an edit war. I couldn't find sources on the PPP but I knew were to find nominal sources so I added cited material. If PPP is more common then by all mean use it. Seeing as you sourced it then there is no issue, as long as it is the most commonly used.
Your standpoint on which you maintain the belief that I refused to accept a source is also a twisted one. As pointed out in previous discussions, you failed to explicitly point out that it was a direct quote. Thus hurting the validity of your statement. Your lack of adequate communication makes editing any article, most notably ones with negative references - or low rankings - towards Mexico, you contribute to quite troublesome and difficult for other editors.
It is extremely outrageous to say I hate Mexico. That is a personal attack and one made from an infantile standpoint. I maintain no personal conflict with you and I don't understand why you feel the need to turn every content conflict into a personal conflict. My addition of content to this article is in no way an edit war. Where it not for the information I have been adding, this article would resemble something like this; much less developed. Citation tags are necessary because what may be common to user is not to another, say someone from Central Asia or Africa. Wikipedia entertains a global audience. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget that you added a citation needed tag. Then I added a source! Then you reverted. Then you reworded the text. I added a "this is a direct quote from the book" several times, proof? [13][14]. So I didn't fail to let you know what it was. You simply didn't want the text to say what it said. Failed communication? I left several messages in your talk page... still you didn't care. Only when other users intervened you stopped. This shows you have a personal problem with me because you just ignored my messages and arguments. And this is not the first time you behave like this. Other examples include Americas and BRIC.
Oh and I find it really uppish and self-centered to say that you kind of improved the article yourself. I think you're forgetting that I have been improving this article lately and also User:Karnifro. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted because the citation was already present. As my summary says. You were simply duplicating the source. Yet you failed to indicate in any way that it was a quote, i.e. italicizing text or using quotation marks. Not to mention, the text you had wasn't the correct English translation. As this edit shows, you were doing more than adding a quote, but changing the text of the history preluding NAFTA; and in this edit the citation is still present. In no way did I suggest that article improvement is solely based on my edits. Yet I see no edits where you greatly expanded the Populace or Economy sections, except where you felt the need to revert or change the meaning of added text. My only point being you seem to imply that I am a mad vandal whose sole point is to ruin this article, when clearly that is not the case. As for my lack of responding, I have responded on my talk page to every comment you have posted. In other words, your "messages and arguments" were not ignored. 08OceanBeachS.D. 04:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

North America (region) and Greenland

As we all know, North America is also the name of a smaller region than the whole continent. It is a geopolitically composed by Canada, Mexico and the United States. There are already two references about this. The three North American countries have several regional, economical, environmental, political... (and more) institutions, trades and accords working nowadays. It is a well defined geopolitical area just as Central America and the Caribbean. Even in popular usage North America also means the three countries, this is fairly common in addition to the definition of North America as the whole continent.

Now, I'm aware that Greenland is sometimes linked to North America. But it is a POV fork to group it with the other three countries when the inline sources are talking about NA as a 3 countries region! It just doesn't fit. Gives to the fork too much undue weight because Greenland is geopolitically linked to Denmark, Norway and the EU. There's no single North American institution or anything that geopolitically linking the 4 countries. The article about Greenland even tell us that and I think most educated people are well aware of Greenland's links to Europe.

So I've reworded the paragraph accordingly to WP policies about in line citations and undue weight. I just thought I'd leave this message to prevent any future edit war... so thanks for reading fellow editors. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict with countries and territories

I've been following this page very closely ever since I started editing here and trying to expand it a little. I don't want to throw acussations at any of the users involved but I do want to say that whatever is going on here it is very obvious and is not helping the article.

So this time I have reverted the article to the previous status. Why? well because I have learned that when a controversial change is made and it creates kind of an edit war the article should be kept as it was before the changes. Controversial changes need to be discussed first not introduced, then create an edit war and then ask the others to discuss to revert to the previous status. That's not how it works. That way Wikipedia would be giving too much power to potential disruptive editors or vandals.

So let's discuss here the change or changes in the article for the section countries and territories. Shall we? Thanks. Karnifro (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. The reason I had it changed to this is because the sub-regions related part of the prose really has no relation to the countries as it focuses more on divisions. It is simply logical and helps the reader understand what they are reading about. Whilst the table section focuses on territorial entities, it was logically titled Countries and territories. I don't see any major issue. It does not violate any policy. Thousands of articles on Wikipedia are divided into subsections, as are sections on this very page. That is my reasoning; it simply makes things easier for the reader. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was about to change "sub-regions" back to "regions", but Karnifro made the change before I did. If nothing else, I don't see much value in the term "subregion" (it's usually spelled without a hyphen), and find it unnecessary confusing when "region" would do just as well. The term "region" can refer to any area, large or small, distinguished from its neighbors by any criteria. In other words, what makes a region a "region" is rather arbitrary. Continents have no special claim to "regionness" and there is no particular need to refer to subdivisions of a continent as subregions, unless one is referring to some specific regionism system like the United Nations geoscheme, which explicitly defines a set of regions and subregions. Note, of course, that the UN geoscheme was created as a means for collecting statistics and is just one of a great many ways of delineating regions, subregions, subsubregions, etc. In short, as the OED puts it, a "subregion" is simply "a division or subdivision of a region". And a "region" is "a subdivision of the earth", "any large portion of the earth's surface considered as defined or distinguished from adjacent areas in some way, as by culture, government, topography, climate, fauna or flora, etc." Also, note, our pages region and subregion are trainwrecks, both. They both make me cringe. Pfly (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec again!) In fact, the subregion page appears to be about nothing but the UN geoscheme. It's unclear to me why the page even exists, at least in that form. Either it should be merged with United Nations geoscheme or it should be much more clear in the lead that it is about the UN geoscheme and not the concept of "subregion" in general. The region page had been halfway decent, the last time I looked, a few years ago. But it seems to have evolved into a confusing mess. Pfly (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether its region or subregion is fine. But I believe it would be best for the article to have the section divided into subsections. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(one more edit conflict) Well, that sounds fine then. I'd suggest "region" over "subregion", if you couldn't tell. :-) On the other hand, the text in that part of the page reads somewhat strangely to me. The way the footnotes occur in clumps after parts of a sentence but not at the end leaves me confused about what points are being referenced exactly. It's all a bit too much for me to try and understand tonight, but maybe another day. Pfly (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I totally see your point. Of course it doesn't break any policy I agree with that. This seems to be just a content dispute. Oh I have a question if I may ask. I got it from the edit summaries, why to call them sub-regions if the sources are talking about regions? I think that sub-region means a smaller region within a region or literally "below the region". The logic would be like this: Continent > Region > Sub-region. And i think Central America, Caribbean and smaller North America are regions within the continent. Uhmm may be Los Altos could be a sub-region of Central America. Would be like Continent: North America, Region: Central America, Sub-region: Los Altos... hope I made my point. Karnifro (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me come back to this later, it's late here and like I wrote above, this part of the page confuses me a bit. Maybe I'm just overtired. I'll come back later and try again. Pfly (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you in that if we decide the title is going to be changed it should say regions instead of sub-regions or subregions. And I also agree that there's a lot of references for Greenland for example xD one or two should be enough. We should keep the same text and may be add the sources in order but at the end of the sentence. Karnifro (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Karnifro and Pfly, I can see your logic on the tier of which things are divided. "Region" would then be the correct term to use in stead of "Subregion." The only reason the Greenland references were added was because I believe in the above discussion (North America (region) and Greenland), User:AlexCovarrubias deemed the addition of Greenland a "...POV fork to group it with the other three countries" and that it was receiving "to much undue weight." I just wanted to make sure, since he though that, that other users/readers would not be dealt similar confusion. I agree that the sources should be added to the end of the sentence. 08OceanBeachS.D. 09:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Support regions instead of sub(-)regions. All the refs for Greenland seem a bit pointy. We should consolidate them. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of you Karnifro, Pfly and Nsaum75. Basically region instead of subregion. I also think there's no need to have two separated subsections per MoS. Both should be consolidated under "Countries, territories and regions", that's my suggestion. I also agree with Pfly in that we should move the references to the end of the sentence, but to mantain the wording (as Karnifro suggested). That wording will avoid giving the wrong idea that the North American geopolitcal region includes Greenland because this is not true. Greenland is linked to Europe. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording is fine. If we're all talking about the same sentence than it will read Canada, Mexico, the United States, and Greenland are grouped in a region also sometimes referred to as North America, not to be confused with the continent as a whole.[50][51][52][53][54] However, the North America region is much more than a geopolitical region. It is also a geological and environmental region. I would also like to point out that Greenland is not part of the European Union as User:AlexCovarrubias purported. Politically yes, it is linked to Denmark, but that it is only because it is an autonomous province of the a fore said. But there are other ways for a country to maintain ties. The use of the term region is fine. Yet, I still think it would make prose comprehension easier for the reader to have it divided into subsections. Thousands of Wikipedia articles do this, and it does not violate any policy or WP:MoS as User:AlexCovarrubias keeps suggesting. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed the citations at the end of the sentence, though, the sentence now reads: In contrast to the common definition of North America, that which encompasses the whole continent, the term is also used to refer to Canada, Mexico, the United States, and Greenland. Hopefully there is no issue. Yet we still have not reached consensus on whether or not to included the titles for the subsections. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Need for a High Quality political map

We need a high quality political map that shows the whole North American continent, including Central America and the Caribbean. So far we have to maps. They are very nicely colored and very pro looking but it would be better to have a map of the whole continent. So far I wasn't able to find a high quality map. Can you guys help? AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. I think it is better as it is now because the Caribbean is such a small area that a zoomed map will help a lot. Currently we have three maps one focused on the US, Canada and Mexico, one in Central America and one in the Caribbean. I think that is good because also Central America is small and a focused map helps a lot. Karnifro (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
hi again I also believe that the maps are ok as they are now. Karnifro is right because the Caribbean is such a small region full of tiny islands. Having a focused map will help the reader. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way I just stole some of your signature code hehehe I wanted a colored one too!! :P It looks great, right? KarniFro( Talk to me) 14:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It might be a good idea. We could list the map before the others focusing on the Central America and the Caribbean. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Still not able to edit article

I was unable to edit this article because I didn't have an established account. Now I created an account and I still can't edit, why is this? I don't have problems with other articles. ♥Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 01:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to be autoconfirmed, which requires "both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits", I think. Looks like your account is not quite four days old yet. Pfly (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Pfly. Back in the old days you did not have to wait to edit and I am still not sure why I only have a problem with this article. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Ok IE signed me out again this is me ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It's because the page is "semi-protected", meaning you can only edit if you are autoconfirmed. There's a little icon of a lock at the top of the page. Clicking on it takes you to a page about semi-protection. Apparently this page was semi-protected due to excessive vandalism. Pfly (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

North American regions

Once again OceanBeachSD and his POV forks. I think by now his personal intentions are pretty clear. It is enough to check some of his edits... but I'll take care of that later. So cut to the chase...

Northern America and Middle America are terms not widely used. They are pretty much uncommon. So I've reworded our new "regions" sections to reflect this. I've listed common regions such as Central America, the Caribbean and North America first and then in a separated paragraph Northern America and Middle America, being these two last term the uncommon terms. This is per undue weight policy. Is with the term Middle America that I have the most trouble with, since it was only introduced to this article by an ancient sockpuppet-abuser highly uncivil editor (whose multiple sockpuppets had been discovered, reported and blocked accordingly) when he couldn't sustain that Mexico was part of Central America.

Oh also Mexico is not geographically part of Central America. Some authors describe a portion of it physiographically within the region (this is already addressed in the appropiate section), but also this is side view. As Pfly noticed in a previous debate, even ecollogically and physiographically others group North America all down to Mexico only. In fact we've discussed this in a previous recent talk, so I don't think there's problem with this. I also removed that part, since it tried to confuse the readers.

So this is why I don't understand why OceanBeach re-added that. Is he trying to mislead the readers? No, it is as simple as he's got a personal problem with me and is going around supporting whatever I don't support. He even commented on Pfly's request on deleting the article subregion only after he noticed I supported Pfly... so ok, leave your thoughts. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

hello I wanted to edit the article myself days ago but I cannot access my account and the article continues to be blocked for editing from ips. I do not see any problems with your rewordings in fact the previous one was wrong so I support this. Over here they teach the 7 continents model (N and S America being different continents) as opposed to Latin America and Europe where they teach the 5 continents models. I think we all know the 5 continents model represents America as a single continent and North America and Central America are subcontinents or regions. These regions are also pretty defined in the 7 continent models and Mexico is not part of Central America not wholly or in part as the previous wordings wrongly said. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to add that I was part of debates years ago and I remember the user you talk about he was very rude and wouldnt accept consensus that is why he was blocked several times. I remember he used an English usage dictionary to support his claims that Mexico was Central America but it was dismissed because for geography is not a reliable source of course, and that is how the section "usage of the term" was included in the article. I believe the reference to fowlers English usage dictionary is still there in the usage of the term section.
If the ip block is not lifted I cannot edit so can you please ask for it to be removed? Or do you think there is a lot of vandalism? nevermind I think i'll just try my oldest account or create a new one. Once again greetings from Beijing! 202.142.24.244 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You should definitely register a new account if you lost access to your old one. So that way you can edit this article!! Karnifro (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You're both right in that Mexico is not part of Central America I think that is well established in the article that's why I'm surprised with the rewording that Ocean Beach selected. It was agreed to leave the text as it was, read the above conversation between Pfly, Alexcovarrubias, Ocean and I. I also took some time to read some of the past debates and they were always one person against many that I can't believe that!!! And the single user seemed very racist or at least very uncomfortable with the idea of Mexico being part of North America lol. Well I honestly think the rewording is plainly right and direct. Now I'm also well aware of the policy of undue weight because well lol it was applied to me in other articles lol but in this case I think it is undue weight to mention Middle America that much. It's not a common term and I think we all know that for a fact. Here in the US if you say middle america it means the middle class population. Karnifro (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Mexico is not part of Central America or "Middle America". I don't think I've ever read Mexican governmental literature that refers to the country as being located in Central America either; it almost exclusively uses "North America" while referring to Panama, Honduras and Guatamala as being "neighbors in central america". -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 00:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
That's true and also the Central American nations do not consider Mexico part of the region. Looking at all the geographical definitions of the continent they always describe it as Greenland, Canada, the USA, Mexico, Central America and the West Indies or the Caribbean. So I think the new rewording is just fine. Karnifro (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok so basically we all agree, yet again. So far I'm glad because this means it's clearly a POV fork. I'm kinda getting tired and frustrated about this situation and I think my words reflect my frustration but c'mon we shouldn't be dealing with this kind of disruptions. We should be putting our best efforts to put this article in shape, not in editing to bother the others as it is clearly the case of user OceanBeachSD.

Because I mean... we all agreed in something and then he edits it and basically reworded the whole thing. He also completely ignored a previous talk about regions. This is just disruptive and I think further steps should be taken. Enough evidence is now found here and there. BUT I whole heartdely believe we should not waste our energy correcting other's biases, POV forks, or filing cases for help. Like I said, we should improve the article and leave the "I hate your country" stuff aside. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a little evidence about how OceanBeachSD is playing with all of us and with our valuable time. He was well aware that Middle America is a very rarely used term. He even kinda apologized for using it here [15] (May 7). He also learnt that it was not an appropiate term (due to its rarity) weeks after that in this talk page. Pfly, Karnifro and I talked about the regions of the continent. But what happened today? He reintroduced the term [16] even if he knew it was not correct and very objectionable. This re-introduction was not necessary given for a number of reasons. As all of you can see, the caption of the map was already correct. Why would he want to add MA? Given the fact that he was well aware of this, that's plainly disruptive. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Meh... no comments. I'm kinda starting to see a pattern here. Sorry if I dismissed your previous comments about this as personal stuff. I think this is serious. But yeah we should focus on improving the article and I think Ocean Beach deserves a second chance. Everybody deserves a second chance. Karnifro (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of talk

Ok what is wrong with that guy Ocean Beach? I think I have now a pretty good idea about what he's trying to do even if I deffended him in the recent past!! He completely ignored this talk and reinserted false and unsourced information about Mex being part of Central America [17]. He also deleted the main article Regions of Mexico but kept Canada and US. He also added economic comparisions of the US with Canada and Mexico which is not only not necessary but very US-centered. So I've reworded his edit per what is agreed in this talk. KarniFro( Talk to me) 18:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I hope you don't mind the "continuation talk" section. I think it makes faster when the talk becomes too long, as in this case. 78.129.227.67 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ooopps seems Wikipedia logged me out xD the above anonymous IP ↑ is actually me :P KarniFro( Talk to me) 18:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Regions of Mexico" article is just an article about the states and D.F., and actually links to Political divisions of Mexico, as opposed to one about actual regions. If we are going to link that article than States of the United States and Provinces of Canada need to be linked. In addition to every other article with a list on the states/provinces of all North American countries. No where in this edit do I purport Mexico to be part of Central America, but Middle America. The two are not co-terminous. The comparison was re-added because it is interesting and arguably pertinent information. Seeing as the U.S. economy is the largest in the world, economies are going to be compared to it. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind the continuation talk. And I'm glad that you are starting to see the obvious. I think we can only hope for him to understand and stop being disruptive? Meanwhile let's keep the good work. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I see which sentence you guys are talking about. That is mentioned because the southern isthmus can be included or the whole country as in the United Nations geoscheme. While it is not necessarily common, it is important that it's noted. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We need a real "Regions of Mexico" article not a political article. However what we need more is for people to stop reverting each other and talk things out. Ignoring the input of other editors just creates feelings of mistrust and isnt productive. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 20:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe AlexCovarrubias can spearhead that since he's from Mexico and most likely knows the regions better than some of us. I added reliable citations. Therefore the content shouldn't be reverted. Mexico is indeed considered part of Central America by some sources, as linked; especially in the English speaking world, which Central America#Usage points out. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've created Regions of Mexico AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to the agreed version in this talk page. Mexico is not part of Central America, nor in whole or in part. No reputable geographic atlas or publication support this. The UN geoscheme is not a reliable geographical reference, because as you already learnt earlier (see above and previous talk) it was created purely for statistical convinience only. Its division is arbitrary and better said by the UN:

According to the United Nations, 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.[18]

So adding this back is purely confrontational and disruptive. You're also going against all the editors that agreed this. This is just insane. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of Mexico in "Central America" seems to be a WP:FRINGE opinion, since the vast majority of sources, and the country of Mexico itself, consider the country to not be part of Central America. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 20:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
While I agree it may not be common, it is sometimes included. The article is noting that. Mexico is considered part of Central America by some sources, as linked; especially in the English speaking world, which Central America#Usage points out. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
That is based on one source, I still consider it a Fringe view, which others here appear to agree with. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 20:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, three sources cite the text. I'm sure I could find more. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all you're going against all of us. Fowler is an English usage dictionary not a reliable geographic source. In fact it is used in the usage of the term section. And most importantly we all agreed with the previous version as it was correct. KarniFro( Talk to me) 20:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The material is cited. It is additionally cited that it is not common. Is that good enough? My goal is to show the entire view. This article also cites dictionaries throughout the text. On English Wikipedia it seems entirely just to use an English Dictionary. Geographic sources are not the standard for citing geographic prose. Neither view is incorrect. One is just more common than the other. And the article, with supportive sources, points that out. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Karnifro and the anonymous IP from China made an excellent point. Fowler's English Usage dictionary is not a reliable source when it comes to geography. That dictionary list how English terms are used. It's appropiately used as a reference at the "Usage of the term" section. But definitely can't be used as a reliable geographic source. Read Wikipolicies about it. And you should stop being disruptive. We all have agreed about something and only because of you this is happening. You're the one edit warring and POV forking. That's disruptive.AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
In case you are just reverting without reading, the sentence reads: "Central America may or may not included southern parts - below the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or the entirety of, Mexico.[58][59][60] However, more commonly Mexico is excluded from Central America and sources commonly remove Mexico, and English-speaking Belize, from the region.[61][62]" 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous agreed version. I'm also taking further steps since this is clearly a disruption. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have failed to respond to my comment. Reliable sources are cited. It is even additionally cited that it is not common. I don't see what your issue with the text is. You have been ignoring talk responses and reverting truthful information calling my edits disruptive. You seem to have not read the prose.
"Central America may or may not included southern parts - below the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or the entirety of, Mexico."
Sources
  • Burchfield, R. W. 2004. "America". Fowler's Modern English Usage (ISBN 0-19-861021-1) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 48.
  • Central America". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
  • Cite web: Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings, United Nations Statistics Division. Revised 28 August 2007. Accessed online 13 October 2007.
"However, more commonly Mexico is excluded from Central America, and sources commonly remove Mexico, and English-speaking Belize, from the region."
Sources
No doubt I could find more reliable sources. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Firs of all, Fowler's is not a reliable source for geography. It's not a geographic publication. It's an "English usage dictionary". It is used as a source ar the usage of the term section. See it? Ok. Secondly, the Britannica link doesn't work. Thirdly, and as I already stated and ALL OF THE OTHER USERS agreed (per this talk and previous talk), the UN geoscheme is not a reliable source, why? In case you didn't read or just plainly ignored it:
According to the United Nations, 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.[19]
But I'm sure you just won't care. So please I beg the other editors to leave your opinions about this. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the Britannica link. Seeing as it's an English usage dictionary, obviously English-speakers feel Mexico is part of Central America, in part or in whole. The wording says it may be', it is also pointed out it's not common. It still supports the claim that some sources consider it to be part of Mexico. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! This is me former anonymous IP 202.142.24.244 who finally decided to create a new account. As I said yesterday that Fowler reference won't work for geographic matters as it is an English use of words. And I think we all have said it is already used in the use of the term section where it belongs. Encylopedia Britannica defines the Central America as a region between Mexico and Colombia, not including these countries of course. It also says that some geologists and physiographist delimit the region at the Istmous of Theuanhtepec. It's clearly a side note not a mainstream concept and Britannica makes the point by saying "some". It is also important to notice that the whole article is about the common 7 nations Central America. So this is just a POV forking. I read in the appropiate section (where the article talks about physiography) that this is already included but with a citation needed mark. This Britannica reference can be used there but certainly not in the regions section since Britannica defines it as it is already defined in this article. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Omg I forgot to log in with my new account well this is my new account. ♥Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 22:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuation 2

OceanBeach that's not how Wiki works.... you can't remove the agreed per talk version just because you don't like it. The previous version was agreed so it will stay up. Your wording is the controversial one and it contains serious issues already explained by all of us. It would need to be discussed if you still insist in adding it. I appreciate you taking a break but you can't go against the majority. That's very rude and Nsaum is right, it's a fringe. KarniFro( Talk to me) 21:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like it. But I feel it is one-sided. Narrow minded perhaps. I think this needs to be taken to the WP:Arbitration Committee. If this really is WP:FRINGE, than It will be declared so there. I feel by your response that you may have missed this:
"Central America may or may not included southern parts - below the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or the entirety of, Mexico."
Sources
"However, more commonly Mexico is excluded from Central America, and sources commonly remove Mexico, and English-speaking Belize, from the region."
Sources
No doubt I could find more reliable sources. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong or "fringe" about the idea that Central America is sometimes considered to begin at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Encyclopedia Britannica, a high quality source, begins its Central America article like this: southernmost region of North America, lying between Mexico and South America and comprising Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. (Geologists and physical geographers sometimes extend the northern boundary to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico.) You can see the idea repeated in many places, as a browse through a Google Books search like this should show. On the other hand, the idea that all of Mexico is part of Central America seems, to me, far less common. I don't think I've ever come across the idea before. Also, nsaum75 mentioned above "We need a real "Regions of Mexico" article not a political article." I agree. We do have Category:Regions of Mexico, which might help get such a page started. Pfly (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point here. The fringe we all see is that OceanBeach wants to wrongly fork the idea that the geographic region of Central America sometimes includes Mexico, in whole or in part. That's is wrong. Neither Mexicans nor Central Americans consider Mexico part of the region. And there are tons of institutions, treaties, accords, etc. to prove it. As Nsaum said, neither government consider Mexico part of the region.
Now, physiographically (and sometimes ecologically as you pointed in a previous talk) some (who?) authors delimit the region at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That's a whole different situation! That physiographical note is already in the article! I think we all know that the region at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec can share physiographical features with Central America (seismic activity, some ecosystems, etc.) but that doesn't mean Mexico or a part of it belongs to Central America. Britannica article about Central America completely excludes Mexico. It just gives us a small note sayin that "some geologist and physiographist" delimit the region at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Again, that's already in the article and it belongs to the geography and extend or geology section. OceanBeach added a "citation needed" tag weeks ago in that sentence. I completely agree with IP user 202.142.24.244 now User:Xuandy that Encyclopaedia Britannica can be used to replace that citation needed tag.
But try to give the false impression that Mexico is part of the region of Central America is uncommon, a political fringe and plainly wrong. Most of the reliable sources describe the continent as Greenland, Canada, St. Pierre, Bermuda, the USA, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again I have to agree with this. Geographically Central America is pretty well defined and it doesn't include Mexico. KarniFro( Talk to me) 15:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see now, and what you say makes sense. I might say something like "politically", Central America doesn't include Mexico--after all, geography includes physiography, geology, ecology, history, zoology, and many other fields in which the region called Central America might commonly be extended into southernmost Mexico. Just saying, statements like "Geographically Central America is pretty well defined" and "the geographic region of Central America" don't necessarily mean "political", at least to me. Defining Central America in terms of political borders is probably the most common, but sometimes it might be helpful to make that clear, to avoid confusion like I had earlier in this thread. In other words, it would be clearer, to me, to say: "Politically, Central America is pretty well defined" and "Politically, the region of Central America".... Pfly (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreement so far

Hi everybody again good evening to all. I see yesterday user 08OceanBeachSD was blocked[20] because he reverted too much and created an editwar for his favorite version but not the one agreed in this talk. I also see that other users defended and reverted to the agreed version per talk, so to set things clear and avoid being confused for editwarrior let's say it directly and clear because the talk was very long. We agreed to the text as it was in this version [21], basically listing the regions of Central America and Caribbean, then the explanation of North America as a region including Canada, Mexico, the US, Greenland. Those are the common regions and the mainstream views. And then in another paragraph the less common terms first Northern America and then Middle America with a note about how this term is rare. And finally a paragraph listing varied regions of Canada and the US.

But in this version Karnifro [22] included a little rewording added by OceanBeach in the lead which I found ok since Karnifro corrected to mantain the structure we all previously agreed, that is explanations of the Central American, Caribbean, then North America region and in a separated paragraph the less common terms Northern America and Middle America and note. Thanks and I hope for OceanBeach to stop his behaviour and continues to be a helpful editor without uncivility. 202.142.24.244 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know what is wrong with my IE it never remembers my account and it forgets to sign with my registered account. Anyway I think you all know my IP by now hehe. ♥Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 15:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cities table too bulky

Do we really need all that information in the cities table? A metro area and a "core city" column? I think we should only have a city column, population, area size, year and country. As it is now the table looks bulky and too crowded with information and we already have links to the main articles (List of North American cities by population and List of North American metropolitan areas by population) in case a person wants deeper information. The cities table should provide a quick look into North American cities because it is a subsection. A smaller table will also comply with policies of WP:MoS. This is after all a subsection not a main article. There's also problems with the layout of the page since the table is too broad, that doesn't help in smaller but common screen resolutions (such as 1024x768) and it totally messes up mobile Wikipedia article layout.

So what do you guys think? I honestly believe we should trim it. We should also be careful about article size so this will also help in that matter. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Trimming it sounds good, but which information do you propose removing to pare it down? -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Quoting myself "I think we should only have a city column, population, area size, year and country" AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What I think meant to ask was a clarification on whether City proper or City metro would be used? -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Dunno about this I'm not sure. I think we first should try making the font size smaller? Or if that cannot be done I would support deleting the core city and density columns. KarniFro( Talk to me) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried making the font smaller but it looks weird and hard to read, it wasn't helpful. Anybody else supports removing the core city and density columns? I personally would like to remove all of the columns I mentioned above but I can also agree with Karnifro. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The table is very big yes. I support deleting the columns karnifro proposed or the columns alex originally proposed. Any of the two is fine but karnifro's proposal first. I agree that there is many info too much. Thanks ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Xuandy for agreeing with me then everybody seem to agree with removing core city and density at least. KarniFro( Talk to me) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I could see removing the density columns and adding the information to the List of North American metropolitan areas page. The core cities column should stay because metropolitan areas are often composed of many major cities. Especially in the United States and Canada; when they are so large how can one city represent the whole area. Though it would seem in the case of Mexico City there is only one major city. I may be mistaken though. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand what is your concern but every single metropolitan area has its own dedicated article so one can click on it and learn more about it. I dunno we're trying to make it smaller and easier to read. Maybe we could delete density, area and use city core as the main column instead of metropolitan area? What do you think my fellow editors? =P (sounded so formal) KarniFro( Talk to me) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uuhmm I dunno what is wrong now...

  1. we were discussing how to make the current cities table smaller and I think that we all agreed it was good to do it...
  2. all of the sudden Ocean Beach added a new cities table!! Now the problem with it being super big is even worst because we now have to super big tables...
  3. I'm going to make the changes that we all agreed...

I find it again like a content fringe because well let's be honest, we were discussing how to make it smaller and this user comes and added a whole new table!! Problem solved? I don't think so!! It made it worst!! His table design looks better I loved it because it includes pictures inside of it and a colored frame but the main problem is it doesn't include the info we all agreed... he didn't use the concept of metropolitan area but cities alone. And the table is still the same size!!! I'm going to make the changes we all agreed.... KarniFro( Talk to me) 19:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhmmm I would like to keep Ocean Beach's table design but with the data we all agreed and if he can make it smaller after all that was the main concern. It would look soooo nice!!! I would completely agree with this!!! KarniFro( Talk to me) 20:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I had to strike that out. I'd like Ocean Beach colored table but without the pictures inside. Having them outside looks better and less cluttered. Can you please modify your table please please please? I tried but I made it worst :S KarniFro( Talk to me) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
While Ocean Beach tells if he can make his table smaller I've made the changes we all agreed with. Deleted colums from it and also added back the pictures all aligned to the right was they were displayed before the table was added. I think it looks good!!! KarniFro( Talk to me) 20:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
wasn't a good example of civility to add other table in the middle of a talk to make the current table smaller that is not good it is very rude I believe. I support karnifro's changes because those were agreed and I like how the section look now ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
My addition of another table was not meant to be a solvent to the current problem. It was added and was unrelated to this discussion. It was just meant to focus on the cities. Personally I feel the images should not accompany the table because the overflow looks messy. If the true purpose of shortening the table is to convey information by way of simplicity, than the images should not be a necessity. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
We were discussing how to make a table smaller and you added a new one well that doesn't help at all in fact it makes it worst because it took more space from the section. How can you say it was unrelated if you added another city table? And we were discussing the city table! KarniFro( Talk to me) 14:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
i think the problem is solved the sections looks great now very sleek ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 13:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Discover America" it should be re-discover America. People were already here

People were already here. So it should be re-discovered America. CaribDigita (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Umh, the natives in America didn't discover it; They were already there. TMCk (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous. I meant the statements in the North America article about Christopher Columbus. CaribDigita (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Although it is said that the vikings where there before, Columbus is widely credited as being the first to have discovered America. TMCk (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Precisely I was just coming to add that. The Vikings are said to have reached eastern Canada. CaribDigita (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. The Europeans discovered America in the sense they didn't know anything about its location. The Natives also discovered America because they found this land millions of years ago. So I don't know. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 14:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There were already humans on this piece of earth long before the shell broke loose and became a continent on it's own as we know it today.TMCk (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess he'd be: The Earliest known European (by name) to have confirmed the existance of the American continent for the majority of Europeans." CaribDigita (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right it should be reworded. KarniFro( Talk to me) 18:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Re-discover" is not the best term. Better, I think, to specify "European" or, for more global scope, "non-indigenous". If the word "discover" is to be replaced, I'd suggest something like "found" instead of "re-discover"; eg, change "Vespucci was the first to discover South America" to "Vespucci was the first European to find South America", or something to that effect. Pfly (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be something like: Aside from the arrival of the Pleistocene Paleoamericans between the years 40,000 — 17,000 B.C, North America was first discovered by the European explorer Leif Ericson, and later, more famously, by Christopher Columbus. The sentence acknowledges all points of issue and makes it known the Europeans were not the first people to arrive to the continent. 08OceanBeachS.D. 19:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Something like that. But note there were other groups who came after the Pleistocene but before Leif Ericson, like various arctic peoples such as the Inuit. Also, perhaps Ericson should be noted as the earliest known European to reach North America. There are plenty of theories about other possible voyages/discoveries, although many are far-fetched, some are at least plausible (like Chinese ships blown out to sea and wrecking in the Pacific Northwest, "a near certainty" according to Hayes Historical Atlas of the Pacific Northwest; possible Polynesian contact with the Chumash people, etc). Not sure how best to word these things. Pfly (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
So then maybe: Aside from the arrival of the Pleistocene Paleoamericans between the years 40,000 — 17,000 B.C – and the later arrival of Arctic natives such as the Thule people – North America is generally acknowledged as being first discovered by the European explorer Leif Ericson, and later, more famously, by Christopher Columbus. 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. Pfly (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Leif Ericson mention should not be upfront, since it is not a common point of view and certainly not a mainstream one. We would be breaking undue weight policy. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not undue weight because he is generally acknowledge as the first explorer. It also clears up any possible ambiguities of the true first explorers more so than his exclusion from the sentence would. Undue weight would be mentioning person V who arrived on ship W with crew X from country Y in the year X. 08OceanBeachS.D. 07:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Policy says (in simple words) undue weight is to give too much attention/focus to minority, rare or not mainstream POVs with a wording that creates the illusion that these share equal recognition or validity of that of the mainstream views or common views. Leif Ericson is regarded by some as the first explorer, but this is not a mainstream view. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 08:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. And Leif Ericson is generally regarded as the first. Even BBC acknowledges him as the most likely first discoverer. And views held by BBC are generally considered mainstream. There is no one else to hold the title. It is widely acknowledge that Christopher Colombus – the only other potential "mainstream" candidate – was indeed not the first explorer. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
BBC is a broadcaster yes, but it is wrong and risky to say that whatever they show on TV is considered "mainstream views". For example they often film and show documentals about minority POV such as the conspiracy theories about 9-11 World Trade Center attack or if the ancient civilizations of the Americas were visited by UFOs... Mainstream views are simply those that are almost universally accepted or widely accepted. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 09:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So I'm not opossing to the mention of Leif Ericson, but I honestly believe it should be reworded to avoid breacking the undue weight policy. I suggest something like this:

Aside from the arrival of the Pleistocene Paleoamericans between the years 40,000 — 17,000 B.C – and the later arrival of Arctic natives such as the Thule people – North America is generally acknowledged as being first discovered by the European Christopher Columbus. Other authors suggest the first European to reach North America was Leif Ericson.

Or something like that, you guys can reword it.AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 09:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The only issue is that Christopher Columbus is acknowledged as not being the first explorer to discover the continent, in contemporary society. It is widely known there were others before him. Most notable, Leif Ericson. It was once a mainstream view that he - Christopher Columbus - was once the first explorer but science and historical evidence has proved that theory wrong. Every person who was been educated through the fifth grade will know that. 08OceanBeachS.D. 09:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember Ocean Beach that not only because you were taught that it means that the whole world teach that or different sciencemen or historians opinions are the same I find it very uncivil that you say "every person who was been educated through the fifth grade will know that" especially because then you were not well educated since you still mantained Mexico was part of Central America. I didn't hear about this Erikson person until today so it is likely a educational system disrepancy due to the limited recognition of this theory. ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The respective articles support the format of the sentence: Aside from the arrival of the Pleistocene Paleoamericans between the years 40,000 — 17,000 B.C – and the later arrival of Arctic natives such as the Thule people – North America is generally acknowledged as being first discovered by the European explorer Leif Ericson, and later, more famously, by Christopher Columbus. The Christopher Columbus acknowledges Ericson as being the first explorer and the Leif Ericson article supports that he was the first. 08OceanBeachS.D. 09:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree with OceanBeach on this one. A claim like [aside from indigenous peoples] it is generally acknowledged that North America first discovered by the European Christopher Columbus would make me cringe. It would sound ill-informed or quaintly antiquated to me. If Greenland is considered part of the continent then there was never any question but that the Norse had colonized it centuries before Columbus--even Columbus knew that. And if not, it is well established and, as far as I know, well known that the Norse definitely founded a colony on Newfoundland. Perhaps a different wording, like that Columbus is widely celebrated as the discoverer of America, or something. "Celebrated" isn't the right word either, as many indigenous people damn him for it. Pfly (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I like the combination of Pfly's with Alex's rewording adding celebrated, sounds better. ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd support a different wording than the one OceanBech is suggesting mainly because I study geography and I was taught that some other European people were in the Americas before Columbus like the norse and the vikings but never heard before about this man Leif Erikson so I can share Alex concerns about undue wieght. Not only because a certain teaching or view is in a book it means it is world wide accepted or aknowledged so I think I support another wording because of undue weight concerns. ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Leif Erikson was the one who continued exploring on from Greenland (although there may have been sightings of mainland North America before him, by Bjarni Herjólfsson for example). It was Leif's father, Erik the Red, who discovered Greenland, which is usually considered part of North America. Perhaps it would be better to link Norse colonization of the Americas than to Leif Erikson. Also, I'm still not sure about saying Columbus is celebrated for discovering America, knowing that some people don't celebrated him at all (see Columbus Day#Opposition to Columbus celebrations). "Widely celebrated", sure. Or perhaps "widely remembered". Just some thoughts. Pfly (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok then we have another problem with the Leif Ericson mention. If his father discovered Greenland (a part of North America) then Leif is not the first discoverer of NA. I support Pfly's suggestion of linking to Norse colonization of the Americas instead of mentioning Leif, it's proven to be too problematic and is not a mainstream view (undue weight). I also think that whatever wording you guys think is the best to describe "Columbus discovery" is ok, as long as it is mentioned as the "mainstream" belief around the world.
We could say something like "Althought Christopher Columbus is widely celebrated as the first European to have discovered North America, evidence suggests that other peoples such as the Norse arrived first. Explorer Erik the Red is also considered by some as the first discoverer". AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to stay neutral and using a word like celebrated does not keep things neutral, neither is he celebrated as the first European. As said before, the respective articles support what I am saying. How about, Aside from the arrival of the Pleistocene Paleoamericans between the years 40,000 — 17,000 B.C – and the later arrival of Arctic natives such as the Thule people – North America is generally acknowledged as being first discovered by Norse explorers such as Erik the Red and Leif Ericson; and later, more famously, by Christopher Columbus. The sentence acknowledges that the Norse were the first explorers and that Christopher Columbus was not the first explorer. Furthermore it shows the Columbus spread general awareness of its existence to European powers. It also acknowledges the Paleoamericans that settled the continent originally, which was omitted from Alex's above version. 08OceanBeachS.D. 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Not bad at all. But the only problem I still see is that even if we were taught that Erik the Red (or Leif Ericson) arrived before Columbus, it is still not a mainstream view. So I would agree with Ocean Beach wording if the part "generally acknowledged" is removed, because it reads as if these concepts were universally agreed, which are not and it will be undue weight. That's my only concern. I've seen undue weight problems all over Wikipedia in the 6 years I've been continously editing. Undue weight is the first problem that creates one of Wikipedia's worst handicaps: systemic bias. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a terribly big problems to omit those words. The sentence will read: Aside from the arrival of the Pleistocene Paleoamericans between the years 40,000 — 17,000 B.C – and the later arrival of Arctic natives such as the Thule people – North America was first discovered by Norse explorers such as Erik the Red and Leif Ericson; and later, more famously, by Christopher Columbus. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with this Alex and OcenBeach, Pfly said that Erik de Red was the first discoverer so why to mention Leif Erikson? It is not necessary. I would support the above wording if Leif Erikson is not mentioned but only the real first discoverer Erik de Red ♥ Xuandy ♥ (Talk) 08:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b De la Torre, Miguel (2008). "Las profesiones en México: condiciones económicas, culturales y sociales". Sociología y Profesión. Monterrey: Nuevo León Autonomous University (UANL). p. 116. ISBN 9702400511. La economía de América del Norte se encuentra bien definida y estructurada en tres principales áreas económicas: el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), el CARICOM y el Mercado Común Centroamericano {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_America/Archive_4&oldid=1140146295"