Talk:North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for North America: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Source/clarify references to Mexico.
  2. Add:
    • culture
    • economy
    • history
    • people
  3. Source everything (i.e., citations for all information).
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] North America and article ownership

Whenever someone attempts to clarify the "Usage" section, WilyD and others violate WP:OWN. It's unfortunate that this section cannot be improved because of their behavior. 68.89.149.2 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything that complies with WP:RS and WP:NOR, and keep in mind WP:NOT#SOAP and it'll remain. Cheers, WilyD 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It's well explained far above that "North America" is used outside of North America to mean the U.S. and Canada, but that this usage is practically unknown in American English. You're one of the fools who keeps fighting to keep the facts out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.220.20 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Try to find such sources. Given the prevalence of that usage among speakers of American and Canadian English, you might have your work cut out for you. WilyD 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
From my experience, "North America" means different things in American and Canadian English: in US English, it includes Mexico and Caribbean countries when in Canada English it's ironically complicated: when Canadians try to use "North America" to refer to "US and Canada", it in many cases covers the fact of Canada only. In another word, when Canadians are talking about things about their country, they tend to use the phrase "North America" instead of Canada, even when such a statement has nothing to do with United States, given the significant difference on almost everything of the two adjacent countries.--Henrysh (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Central America is only recognized as part of North America in U.S. culture. Central Americans don't think of themselves as "northamericans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.29.249.46 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not just U.S. culture. North America is a continent, but some people use it as a region apart from Central America region. In parts of Europe and Asia, they consider North America a separate continent as well from South America. As for Central America, that is a region located on the North American continent. It's clear that the region starts at Panama up to Guatemala, but I've seen it include Mexico sometimes and other times not. I don't think it's a difference between U.S. and Canadian, just different conventions in identifying geographical regions. Kman543210 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even this - it's just bad translations of English meanings into Spanish by Spanish-speakers with alright but nonnative English. Nobody but nobody in Canada would use the nomenclature proposed by our Latin American friends in Canada unless they were looking to get jerseyed. Take a look at sources, it's very hard to find any that consider North America and South America the same continent, but it's easy to find sources that call them the same continente. WilyD 17:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the largest cities

I was thinking that since this article is about the whole continent and obviously Central American cities are being overshadowed by the north American ones, and some users seem to want to add the largest cities in Central America, I proposed (as someone did before) for simply add "Central America" below the 5 largest cities, so they can show up as well, like this: Supaman89 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Mexico City
New York
Los Angeles
etc.
Central America
Guatemala City
Tegucigalpa
etc.

I would like, but people still change everything, they do not understand that Central America must be included, though not sure, I think they simply don't want to highlight Hispanophone countries. 190.140.233.179 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot make a little country hold a larger population than Northern American ones, which are bigger, you must include the Central American population cause at least one of the Central Americans is among the largest.

JUST INCLUDE A CENTRAL AMERICAN CITY. Cocoliras (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the edit [1], the list being used, which is the second one in [2], is for urban agglomerations in 2003, not cities in 2005. It's better to use the newer, 2005, data found in [3]. Also, the edit does not match the source. According to the source, the largest urban agglomerations in the North American continent below Boston are Houston, Washington D.C., and Atlanta, rather than Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Houston. Spacepotato (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok. Tell me if I'm bad, but isn't most infobox to list the cities instead of the metro areas, that overshadows completely countries with smaller sizes. It would be something very sad to see that. I may stay calm currently them. But South America and Central America do have it that way.

As you can see as well, you at least should include something like "in North America" or "if North America includes Central America" cause Central America's classification is ambiguous. Both a continent or a part of one.

Cocoliras (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. It's better to use metro areas instead of cities proper because, even if the population within city boundaries is small, a city may serve as the center of a larger urbanized area. For example, Boston has a 2006 population of under 600,000 but is the center of a larger urbanized area (population >4 million), and so is effectively a much larger city than the 600,000 figure would suggest. I would suggest using metro areas for South America and Central America as well. In any case, using cities proper would not place a Central American city in the top ten.
  2. The ambiguity of North America is regrettable, but we show the extent of the continent in the infobox map, and describe it in the second sentence of the article.
Spacepotato (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, S. Quizimodo (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we at least should place a link to the largest Caribbean and Central American metro areas, since we should give aparted room to them as they are the largest in their own North American region.

I think this dispute is done.

Cocoliras (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm including a link to the rest of the largest cities in central america. it is ok.

Cocoliras (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for that, as the article is about the continent as a whole, not about subregions. I'd like to instead suggest placing a list of subregions (Caribbean, Central America, Middle America, and Northern America) of the continent to the infobox. Then, a reader who wished to see the largest cities in Central America could simply click on the link. Spacepotato (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
While I prefer to use the follow regions: Central America, Caribbean and the North American region, but many wont be agree with me; some will like to use the subregions of: Northern America and Middle America, but many (including myself) wont be agree. The use of Northern America instead the North American region follows the UN geoscheme and wont cause any conflict, but the use of Middle America will do. While Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean are included in MA, it could includes parts of South America too. JC 08:20, 11 January 2008 (PST)
Middle America rarely includes Colombia and Venezuela, which wash upon the Caribbean Sea. Just as North America may occasionally mean something different than the continent, Middle America, Central America, Latin America, and the Caribbean do as well in English. All of this is already incorporated into the article (e.g., 'Usage' section and elsewhere), so why does this persistently pop up? discard your fixation with this and get over it. I opt to keep the subregions in the introductory table as is, or to remove them completely from the introductory table, since no other CONTINENT article does so to cater to whomever. That's all. Corticopia (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not all, I want to reach the point of North American ambiguous term, since North America is not always classified as including North America, you are the one who would need to get over it. I simply do not like the fact of smaller largest cities being overshadowed, I just suggested to include a link to a full link which will not diminish the importance of North America. In reality, Central America currently has more influence and popularity than North America, and I won't let the cities of my subregion be overshadowed. Cocoliras (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If readers want to learn about the largest cities in Central America, there's an excellent place for them to do that - Central America. You may not like that fact that the largest cities list only includes the largest cities ... but that's a far more proper way than "cities like by some random guy on the internets". WilyD 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
North America is not always classified as including North America? You may not like that there are no Central American cities of significance in terms of what was based from the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division at the United Nations, but those are the facts. Your last statement, that Central America has "more influence and popularity than North America" is pure original research. In addition, if readers want to know more about Central America, wel... there is a Central America page devoted to that. You have been notified of this previously; accept consensus or discuss possible changes, but continued edit warring will only pose further problems. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Original Research, though true, we aren't speaking in reality about that. But I want to reach the point that no cities should be left. I placed a link to a full list and the Central America page to clarify the fact you have told me. Even Canadian cities such as Montreal are overshadowed by US. I want also to reach the point that its not fair for it, US is a larger country, and as such is more populous, so I think it is UNFAIR to let that country take all the credit just for its size, since I do not know of a Central American sized country whose population surpasses the US.

I restored the headnote, since it announced HOW THE ARTICLE is written, not how many ambiguities exist. The article refers to the continent as including Central American and the Caribbean regions, and not as the US, Canada and Mexico alone. Since there are different ways of writing ambiguous articles, I want to tell people HOW, it is written.

That's all.

Cocoliras (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My proposed changes to the page are currently adding a hatnote notifying people how the article refers to North America, as there are several ways of reffering to it. Also, I wanted to place a reference that will guide readers to the rest of the largest cities that are beneath the 10th largest. I think we should place it along with the reference to the ten largest cities as reference number two. I also think we should forget about the subregions since the matter is complicated and we may take some days to address the situation.

Cocoliras (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in making an article like List of cities in North America by population or List of urban areas in North America by population, feel free to do so and it'd probably be linkable within "Demographics" - I'm not sure about the infobox, which realistically already has too many cities in "largest cities". You could also see List of the largest metropolitan areas in the Americas & Largest cities in the Americas, both of which are terribly broken examples of how not to do this. Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits is a good example to emulate. WilyD 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, here, I'll start: Largest urban areas in North America. WilyD 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As for hat notes - unless we're disambigging, hat notes aren't really appropriate - the opening paragraph(s) note what we mean by "North America", and there are a few footnotes on vague or geographically ignorant uses. WilyD 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "North America"

REAL North America
REAL North America
FALSE North America
FALSE North America

North America in English language is not real North America nowadays, the caribbean is not of North America (Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico), the caribbean is considered part of Central America sometimes, please check this, must be fixed.--Prodiynet (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation for this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The islands of the archipelago of the Caribbean is known as The Antilles 216.29.249.46 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no difficulty in finding citations for this use of North America, e.g., MSN Encarta. We just aren't using it in this article. Also, cf. Americas (terminology). Spacepotato (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV, the Encarta citation must also be used, along with any other source, not only one particular POV. --the Dúnadan 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We discuss this issue in the "Usage" section. Spacepotato (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the discussion is done properly, nor given its due weight. For starters, it implies that the usage of North America including Mexico is restricted to "entities" of which NAFTA is the most clear case. The Encarta source proves otherwise: it is a geographic usage. (Let me cite: North America, third largest of the seven continents, including Canada (the 2nd largest country in area in the world), the United States (3rd largest), and Mexico (14th largest)."). In fact, Encarta defines North America exclusive of Central America as a continent. Secondly, I don't think it is given its due weight; Encarta is only one of many publications with this usage. Many other publications (and I am more than happy to produce a list), include Mexico in North America and exclude Central America. --the Dúnadan 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In the sentence in question, the "entities" are territories apart from Canada, the USA, and Mexico (e.g., Bermuda) which may be included in the truncated North America. The sentence does not imply that this sense of North America is restricted to NAFTA and similar organizations. However, you raise an interesting point. If North America is defined to be exclusive of Central America, and both North America and South America are continents, then it follows that we are no longer using the 7-continent model. Rather, we are using a "7+ continents" model where Central America is neither a continent nor an island, but is a link between two continents. Spacepotato (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that Encarta, in its article about North America, goes on to indicate that "North America is sometimes defined to include Central America and the West Indies, which are treated separately in Encarta Encyclopedia", while its entry in Encarta Dictionary notes it is a continent which "comprises Central America, Mexico, the United States, Canada, and Greenland." Let's remain focused, shall we? Quizimodo (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Scapegoat, while the sentence does not imply a restriction its construction is confusing; "it may include Mexico as in NAFTA and other entities". Being a very common usage of the term (as explained below), besides being confusing, it is clearly giving it undue weight.

Quizimodo, I don't argue that North America as a continent stretches from Alaska to Panama and is inclusive of Central America. But I do argue that the usage of North America inclusive of Mexico and exclusive of Central America is far more pervasive (at least in the US if you guys want to restrict it to English-speaking countries) than what the article is giving it credit for. The Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations (2001), the Encyclopedia of Worlds Nations (2002), the World Geographic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill (1995), the Oxford Dictionary of the World (1999) and Britannica do not include Mexico in their list of Central American countries, and define Central America as the "strip of land that joins North America with South America". Now links to "usage" (not encyclopedias, and regardless of the content of the page) [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and the many publications of OECD.

Honestly, this discussion is as old as the article itself. However, either through an honest defense of what they believe to be right (being a clear case of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia), or outright ownership of the article, some users object to the many valid reputable sources that have been provided that claim a different story. The tacit consensus has been to simply avoid the topic in the article. At least, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, a better and more comprehensive explanation should be made of the [increasing] usage of the term North America inclusive of Mexico and exclusive of Central America, than a mere one confusing sentence at the end of the article.

--the Dúnadan 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. You have misquoted the sentence, which contains parentheses.
  2. I agree that North America is frequently used as exclusive of Central America. I disagree however with your implication that this use is opposed to usage referring to the continent. Rather, it may also be continental, as illustrated by Encarta, the Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, or the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica (see the start of the "Geology" section).
  3. Given that Wikipedia has settled on the 7 continents model, I'm satisfied with the structure of the article as it stands. The 7+ continents model may merit a mention in Continent.
  4. My name is "Spacepotato", not "Scapegoat".
Spacepotato (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with Spacepotato; the structure of this article and weight given to various reckonings is fine as is; also, I believe the 'continent' article already deals with these notions fairly. Oh yeah: I was starting to wonder who Scapegoat was. ;) Quizimodo (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for changing your name. I might have been misunderstood: I do not oppose the meaning of North America as a continent spreading from Alaska to Panama. I do not oppose the model of 7 continents. I do not propose for a 7+ continent scheme. I am talking about a somewhat common usage of the term North America (which some people dared to call a "region"). (And as far as I recall reading at WP:Systemic bias, we should be careful in using 1911 as it is outdated, specially when it comes to "usages"). Moreover, only one sentence is devoted to that endeavor, that is, talking about usages, which is also, at least in my opinion confusing. --the Dúnadan 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just what I've claimed before. These terms change overtime. Many used to consider North America as anything north of the Rio Grande (Think back to your childhood TV shows now.) Once NAFTA was created, Mexico has since become solidly integrated into the trade agreement with the United States and Canada... Yet- If you go back to the 1960's-1970's CONTEL (The forerunner of GTE & Verizon) was busy spending large amounts of money in Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago to name a few for integrating those countries into the North American Numbering Plan.... These countries today are still a part of it, meaning you only need to dial a +1 plus the area code to reach those countries.

(876 for Jamaica, 246 for Barbados, and 868 for Trinidad and Tobago. All formerly 809)

Now today, if CONTEL/GTE were just now moving into the Caribbean I bet you they probably wouldn't have put many of the Caribbean countries onto the North American area code system. It is more likely Mexico would have been put into it. I agree these definitions change over time. It is just like how in the Caribbean we consider Guyana and Suriname as Caribbean countries.... Because almost the entire population in those countries live on the coastline and have almost no roads in their interior... All of their trading was along the coast with their Caribbean brothers and sisters. CaribDigita (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that conceptions change with time. But that doesn't address my concern, that in Academia the current conception is different from it was from the 1970s, and the article is not giving it due weight. After all, like I mentioned before, the difference between 1911 Britannica and Wikipedia is that we must show updated information, whether in data, scientific developments and political, social and cultural conceptions. --the Dúnadan 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American countries by regions

I really fail to see the need to separate North American countries by region. Especially considering that there is no consensus, even amongst reputable sources, on how to classify Mexico. Moreover, that issue has caused dozens of edit wars before, and the consensus, even if tacit, was to simply list all the countries. Why go back to a classification in which Mexico is said to be Central American? Not only would that amount to WP:POVPUSH (not all sources classify Mexico in Central America, and even though I would be happy to produce a comprehensive list of sources, a quick review at previous discussions and archives suffices), but the editors are begging for another unnecessary edit-war. For the sake of neutrality and to maintain the consensus, I ask the editors of this article (some of which, sad to say, border on WP:OWN), to revert back to the previous version with the list of countries not separated by regions. If you don't think a truly NPOV consensus can be reached, I would be more than happy to request for arbitration; given previous debates, I see no other solution. --the Dúnadan 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with this. In the absence of agreement on how to subdivide the continent, it's better to simply list the countries in order. Spacepotato (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Mexico is in North America along with Canada and the United States, but since some people seemed to have a problem with that, they decided to leave the article unclassified. Supaman89 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American plants and animals?

Maybe this belongs in a different article, but I'd like to be able to easily find native species of plants and animals (and people) from this page. They're just as important as the major cities, perhaps just list the most famous or common? By link or by inclusion or summary, I don't know how, but I'm sure you wiki experts will figure it out. Thanks for making wikipedia a more informative website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.151.13 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Population

Since the populations cited are from 2005 estimates and thus lower than the current populations I've noticed that some countries have 2005 estimated populations that are higher than estimates from 2007.

So I'm wondering why this is.

~ikonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)