Talk:Americas (terminology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feedback

• First of all, the page looks great and is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. For instance, I did not know about the Federal Republic of Central America. To your question of title: I would go with "Definitions of regions in the Americas". Do you have a usage book handy? It might indicate the preferred preposition to follow definition. Are you aware of the article British Isles (terminology)? You may want to consider following some patterns with that one, specifically the title. I cannot think of any missing regions. You give the page a comprehensive nature by including the two defunct countries. I can't help you with the coding of the images. I actually prefer the one single column, but I may change my mind when I see the two columns. By the way, your map of the CSA in the world includes different territory than the similar map on the CSA article (Image:CSAlocation2.png). You may need to expand your coverage of Anglo-America to specifically deal with the issue of Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, and several other Caribbean nations. Also, I'm worried about having the off shade of green cover both Quebec and Belize. What is your reasoning there? If I think of other comments, I will post them. -Acjelen 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your prompt feedback and praise. In response:

• (1) I'm aware of the British Isles article, but it didn't click to entitle this article similarly. Perhaps "Americas (terminology)" would suffice? It works for me: it's simple and obviates me digging through my many usage guides to determine what's proper. :)

As for modelling this article on that one, that might be a bit grandiose just yet: while I like some notions in that article (particularly the Venn diagram), it reiterates much content found in the parent articles. (Also note that the BI article cites fewer sources.) This article is only meant to be a brief overview for clarity and aptly linked/sourced. As well, I think the Americas maps clearly depict relevant territories.

• (2) Regarding the CSA: Oxford/Webster's dictionaties and Cassell's The American Civil War by Brian Holden Reed (ISBN 0-304-35230-6), indicate/depict that the CSA was comprised of just eleven states. While I acknowledge that various other territories were allied to either side, I'm sticking to what I can cite. For example, Cassell's depicts Missouri as allied with the Union despite advocating slavery, while the unsourced larger map in the CSA article indicates Southern allegiance.

• (3) While I can cite definitions for Anglo-America, finding a list of constituents is elusive. Two sources define it as just the U.S. and Canada (dark green) and with no distinction regarding Quebec despite the obvious prevalence of French there. Similarly, I colourised Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, and several other Caribbean territories (in addition to Quebec) lighter shades of green because -- while English is spoken in each locale or have English/British roots (c.f. Commonwealth of Nations) -- other languages are prevalent in each (viz., Creole).

• (4) Similarly, Latin America (dark green) includes Spanish/Portuguese territories; from what I can determine, it is sometimes described to include primarily French-/Creole speaking territories, like in the Caribbean (and those territories are coloured lighter green) or Quebec (in Anglo-America, uncoloured).

Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the mention of West Indies Federation (no "America" there). Also the pro-Confederate government of Missouri was run out of the state by federal troops early in the war, so the state stayed in the Union, but a Confederate government-in-exile was established in Texas. Rmhermen 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the feedback. The mention of the West Indies Federation is more due to the fact that the Caribbean – effectively a synonym for West Indies – is a major geographic/geopolitical region of the Americas (hence worthy of note) and for balance. As for the CSA and further to the discussions above, I've issues with the map renditions in that article and have stated as much on its talk page.

This article has since been placed at Americas (terminology), and the formative archive on its talk page is a copy of the discussions here. If there are no objections, I'll copy everything here into that and we can resume there. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Misuses

Perhaps a section documenting common missuages or confusions of terms might be appropriate? That would explain - in more detail - the (mis)uses of terms such as Columbia/Colombia and America, and the possible reprecussions of these? Robdurbar 10:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is already addressed somewhat at Columbia; I've since added a link to that article. To expand on the topic in this article would detract from its primary purpose. When creating this article, it was intentionally decided to only model it on British Isles (terminology) in title only precisely because of that article's volume and lack of focus/sourcing. Perhaps varied usage of other terms as proposed requires a dedicated article instead – e.g., Columbia (terminology)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested page moves

I'd like to suggest that Americas (terminology) be moved to America.

"America" has historically meant the entire continent (or as some geographers might say, "both continents"). It is not just the country which evolved from the 13 British colonies into "the United States of America". At all times during this evolution, the "USA" consisted of only a small portion and there has been plenty left over.

Geographically, America (continent) has been divided (at least in the English speaking world) into North America and South America. However, socially and culturally there is another significant division: Anglo-America and Latin America.

In the Spanish language, the terms norteamerica and norteamericano do not include Mexico or Central America. Curiously, in English the terms "North America" and "North American" typically do include them. This causes confusion or irritation to Mexicans and other residents of "the Americas".

• A Mexican will typically say that he is "an American" since the continent he was born on is called America (at least in his own language).
• A Mexican will rarely or never refer to himself as a norteamericano.

Pimsleur's Spanish (a language course geared toward native speakers of English) cautions students to be aware of the usage of the Spanish term norteamericano and how it relates to the U.S. usage of "American" and "North American". --Uncle Ed 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the article America is doing an excellent job of (1) being a disambiguation page for the various meanings and uses of the word America that might prompt a Wikipedia user to enter it into the search field and (2) attracting vandals and the like away from other articles. The article Americas (terminology), on the other hand, treats some of the issues you've brought up above. I don't see a reason to move the latter into the space held by the former. At this time, the article Americas (terminology) does not treat how Spanish-speakers label various areas of the western hemisphere. There is another article (Use of the word American) that does discuss how American is used differently by both Spanish- and English-speakers. -Acjelen 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement, Acj. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No one, except U.S. citizens and some Britons and other English-speakers (but not all), refer to the U.S. as America. I personally know people from at least 20 nations in the world (America, Europe, Asia and Oceania) that do not call the United States as "America". The only place you will see foreigners calling the U.S. "America" will be in films and movies made in the U.S. --Cuyaya 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the weight of that use. In the U.S., America and American are used to mean the United States in a constant, pervasive, overwhelming way. This use is as likely to cease in the United States as its citizens are to give up English for Mandarin Chinese. -Acjelen 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international and global resource and thus, if you say "commonly refered to as America", it would incorrectly imply that everyone around the world calls the U.S. 'America'. Reference to the fact that only U.S. citizens do so is imperative in this case to convey what really goes on in the world. If this were "Wikipedia U.S.A", then so be it, but it's Wikipedia English.--Cuyaya 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"What really goes on in the world" is that America is a common noun and American a common adjective for the United States. Is it illogical? Yes. Is it misguided? Sure. Does it cause translation problems with Spanish. Definitely. But I'm not sure why the Spanish language should disrupt the English Wikipedia. -Acjelen 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is common, but only in the U.S.. And it has nothing to do with Spanish translations or any other language. Also, I deal with Britons all the time at work, and they preffer to use the expresion "The States". If a clear and truthful explanation can be given, why omit it? I won't argue with you the fact that the adjective American IS used worldwide, but that's another issue, which I am not denying. --Cuyaya 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I live in New Zealand, and there is NO confusion over what American refers to. The are some academics who try to make a political point over the issue now and then, but if you look in native NZ media, news, etc., American and America consistently refer to the United States and its citizens. My wife and her family are from Italy (Latin country by definition), and I have only ever been referred to as an Americano there. I have travelled all over Italy and this is true. Do a search on La Repubblica's website for the term Americano. No confusion there. It is simply untrue that American is only used in the United States. It is propaganda to say so.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New second paragraph

Hawkfly, I don't see the need for your new second paragraph. Will Wikipedia readers find this article excepting treatment of the United States? As you write yourself, no one uses Americas in the plural to refer to the United States. Perhaps if you explain your thinking here in on the discussion page, I and other editors will understand. -Acjelen 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have nixed this contribution. First, while not necessarily disagreeable, it is unsourced. Second, the article already clearly delineates various meanings. Third, the syntax and grammar leave much to be desired. Lastly, the usage note is better dealt with elsewhere (e.g., Use of the word American). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with those points. However, this is not mentioned on that page. I will make a smaller note of farther down on the page with a source. Hawkfly 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As above: usage details are better placed in Americas and/or Use of the word American, not in this article (intended as a brief overview; see Columbia chat above) nor on the DAB page which is meant to succinctly clarify ambiguities and not embellish on extraneous information regarding usage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, they are better placed here. It is about the use of the word Americas, not American. The page title refers to the terminolgy of the Americas- just what the very short paragraph is about. Hawkfly 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I have moved it (the redone paragraph) to America. You have enough trouble with vandalism and people changing the order that I will save you the annoyance of continuing this debate. Hawkfly 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Americas vs. America

I went to a bookstore in New York City yesterday. They had a nice, rolled-up wall map showing North and South America labelled collectively as America. This is the first time in my life I've seen this. I guess times have changed, and American English along with it.

I daresay "the Americas" is more a term which refers to the several entities called "(blank) America". Now, bowing to the inevitable, it seems that America (region) or America (continent) is the preferred geographical term.

There is no use fighting over this, merely because there is a fight over the Use of the term American. Some people want "America" and "American" to refer to America (USA) and others don't. We should just be clear and helpful to our readers. --Uncle Ed 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All this is fine and good, but it doesn't obviate sourced and clear definitions already indicated. Moreover, the Americas article expatiates on the topic of usage. Apropos: the UN, in its geographic scheme for sub/regions, clearly delineates contituents within the Americas, including North and South. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Location of Mexico

One of the hemisphere maps (Image:LocationWHNorthernAmerica.png) shows Mexico in "Northern America", which contradicts the UN definition of this subregion. Please clarify. --Wing Nut 08:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. This is some kind of error. I don't recall that black band at the bottom of the image either. If anyone knows how to fix it, that would be appreciated. -Acjelen 14:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, someone changed the image yesterday. Good eye Wing Nut. I've restored it now. -Acjelen 14:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrangement

User 69.156.112.143 has repeatedly refused the arrangement placing Central America and the Carribean under Narth America. What does everyone else think? Jaxad0127 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the arrangement. -Acjelen 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wholly resistant to the current placement/arrangement, but some sources do indicate that territories in the Caribbean and Central America are also part of South America (e.g., eastern portion of Panama, Trinidad, Aruba). THus, I prefer an alphabetical arrangement or the prior one. 142.150.134.49 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The physical definition of North America is north of South America. So, in the geophysical section, I think they should fall under North America. But in other sections, I think different interpretations are very appropriate. Jaxad0127 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please qualify this "physical definition" of North America (as above); various citations in the article do not do so per se, and others yet differ. Mind you, I do not disagree with the general sentiment herein, but this article is intended to promote clarity and impartiality ... not the opposite. Take a glance at the talk page for South America to demonstrate just how contentious this can be. 69.156.113.249 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have more than one arrangement:

1. The most popular, historical arrangment(s) first; followed by,
2. The UN geoscheme

The whole point of this article on terminology is to defuse the edit wars over what is the "correct" arrangement, classification and naming of the various countries. --Wing Nut 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But we still need to define the historic one. And we may need to change the maps when we're done. Jaxad0127 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What if we define the geophysical arrangement based on Plate tectonics? That would put most of Central America as part of the Carribean, with Mexico being part of North America. Jaxad0127 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with defusing edit wars, which is the intent of this article and I believe it has held rather well since its creation, but different interpretations are now being interposed without citations: everything in the article (at least previously) was based on this. That's why the status quo (with an alphabetical rearrangement of items) is both correct and impartial vis a is a hierarchical one.

Otherwise, I'm unsure what the point of the above and recent edits are. We should not be 'defining' anything: citations et al. should guide content editions ... and I see little of that above. Plate tectonics is but one aspect of physiography (physical geography). And while I'm a big supporter of the UN geoscheme, we must not place undue weight on it given other definitions cited. Moreover given that the content and maps have prevailed for some time without any changes and are not incorrect (how are they, BTW?), and with proposed changes not indicated or unclear, I see little reason to change them now; . 65.92.173.34 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology or Divisions? Merge with 'Americas'

This article is called "Americas (terminology)" but I find nothing in it that I consider to be terminology as such. The info I would expect to be under this title is actually at Americas#Usage, with related info at Use of the word American. This article is actually "Divisions of the Americas" or "Regions of the Americas". I suggest this article be merged into Americas. Nurg 04:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The name was patterned after the article British Isles (terminology), though there are significant differences between the two. This article was created so that Wikipedia would have a central place for information about how the Western Hemisphere is divided up (since not all English users do it the same way), but have that information away from the disambiguation pages and the articles proper. The main issues were the number of continents and that not only Mexico but also Central America are part of North America (if you recognize North America). I'd like to see this article continue to be separate from Americas. -Acjelen 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If it does remain separate, how about giving it an accurate title like Divisions of the Americas? And I've just discovered Subregions of the Americas which could be merged in here too. Nurg 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem with divisions vs. terminology is the problem of differing schemes. The goal of the article is to point out that different people will use different terms to describe the various parts of the Western Hemisphere. As for Subregions of the Americas, that article gives only the UN view of things and probably needs a POV tag. -Acjelen 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Acjelen, this article should remain separate. 142.150.134.62 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Geopolitical divisions

A geopolitical division is a geographic region comprising a group of countries with political, economical and other common shared interests and that may or may not share an agenda. It is also important to note that geopolitical regions are defined by the countries themselves and their willingness to actively cooperate with each other, not by any other entity or institution. This is not the case of "Middle America" or "Central America" (as defined by the UN geoscheme including Mex). So I deleted the term MA from the geopolitical division and also erased the reference to Mexico in CA. All this in the geopolitical divisions only. I also added North America (Can, US, Mex) because they make up a geopolitical region.

Here are some definition of what geopolitics are (just in case some of you don't know):

• A term that has been used to refer to many things, including a tradition of representing space, states and the relations between them; also emphasizing the strategic importance of particular places. [1]
• The study of the relationships between a nation and the rest of the world - each nation has a sphere of influence it exerts over surrounding nations in areas such as trade, economic aid, military intervention etc. [2]
• The study of the effects of economic geography on the powers of the state [3]
• Geopolitics is studying geopolitical systems. The geopolitical system is, in my opinion, the ensemble of relations between the interests of international political actors, interests focused to an area, space, geographical element or ways. - Vladimir Toncea, Geopolitical evolution of borders in Danube Basin, PhD 2006.
• In the abstract, geopolitics traditionally indicates the links and causal relationships between political power and geographic space; in concrete terms it is often seen as a body of thought assaying specific strategic prescriptions based on the relative importance of land power and sea power in world history... The geopolitical tradition had some consistent concerns, like the geopolitical correlates of power in world politics, the identification of international core areas, and the relationships between naval and terrestrial capabilities.— Oyvind Osterud, The Uses and Abuses of Geopolitics, Journal of Peace Research, no. 2, 1988, p. 191

The geopolitical division of the Americas are easy to identify: North America (here it can be Can and the US, and also Can, the US and Mexico), Central America (Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Nicaragua), the Caribbean, and South America.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ABOUT THE UN GEOSCHEME

According to the article United Nations geoscheme:

The scheme was devised purely for statistical purposes and is used only for carrying out statistical analysis. According to the UN, it: ...does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.

I knew this and I even read it somewhere in the UN website, but right now I cannot find it anymore. However when I consulted the article here in Wikipedia, it already says that. This proves my point that the UN Geoscheme is not a geopolitical instrument. As I said above, I already added the geopolitical areas of the Americas and created a separate subarticle for the UN Geoscheme. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. However, you cannot merely remove information which you are not in agreement with -- I have restored notations of Middle America. It may need to be moved up or down (which Dow, actually, specifically indicates is a culture region) but, seeing as how it is usually defined in relation to constituent states, is (thus) an element of political geography/geopolitics and appropriately placed. That also denies that there are any political relationships among Mexico, the countries of Central America, and the Caribbean -- which is patently false (e.g., CARICOM, Plan Puebla Panama, DR-CAFTA). Geography (geographical) is comprised of two main subsets: physical geography and human geography. (If there's confusion regarding terminology, which should not be used as the basis for excluding terms/removing information, then the section headings should be changed -- e.g., Human/political geography -- and or article tweaked.)

As well, I remind you of the Fowler's and Oxford references which clearly considers North America as Canada and the U.S. together, while F including Mexico in Central America -- cognizant of this and other regional reckonings, I have made appropriate edits. Corticopia 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with geopolitics, because CARICOM and DR-CAFTA are only Free Trade Agreements (Mexico is not an active part in any of that, just observer in CARICOM). Geopolitically the countries of Central America have developed a whole cooperational political system as well as an economic integration (that they seek to make it stronger), not to mention the cultural ties between them. The Caribbean presents another well defined geopolitical entity with a stronger pattern of political integration than CA (they even have a political agreement to vote in block in the OAS and in the UN).

The integration between the Caribbean and Central America is not that strong. It is obvious that both regions have relations between them, just as Canada has relations with the European Union, however, that does not imply that geopolitically Canada is part of the EU region.

Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean may be included in the geographic region of Middle America, however, between them (and specially between Mexico-CA, Mexico-Caribbean) there is no political/economical or even militar integration (presented in CA and in the Caribbean), they simply do not make up a geopolitical region. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention the well-intentioned, but never seriously taken and sadly never enforced/implemented "Plan Puebla-Panamá" (and as its name clearly indicates, it was just a plan). It was a political maneouver from Mexican Ex-President Vicente Fox to send friendly signals to the Central American countries. It has basicly limited to investment each country have to make (and they acquire separately external debt) in order to improve the transportation conditions of the Mexican southeast and Central America, to attract more foreing investment. Ever since it was "launched", it was rapidly forgotten, so fast that it had to be "relaunched" in 2004.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not that strong" (among other comments)? Sounds like original research (if not supposition) to me. As before: the Dow reference specifically indicates Middle America may also be a "cultural region". Feel free to move it elsewhere in the article and to reframe/tweak its contents, but removing applicable information about this region in the Americas from this article regarding terminology as it pertains to the Americas is vandalism and will be dealt with swiftly.

In addition, since you continue to push a point of view to the exclusion of others regarding the nebulous region of North America and its contents (and I still see NO citation that refers to it specifically as that), I am adding the Fowler's and Oxford references about reckonings/inclusions of America/North America. As for other points, you are entitled to your opinion -- but removing information AGAIN (and after apparently being in place for quite awhile) does not prove your point. I will wait for others to weigh in. (A segue: I have studied Political Science, including international relations, at the university level, so perhaps it is you who is unfamiliar with the concepts and terminology therein.) Corticopia 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

According to you, that particular reference (Dow) indicated Middle America may also be a cultural region. That's different, the subdivision you added Middle America to is geopolitics. It does not belong there.

About Mexico being included in Central America. I'm surprised that you add Mexico here, because you know (from the articles North America, Mexico and Geography of Mexico in which you have actively participated) that it geopolitically does not belong there. I don't think Fowler's dictionary is a good source for understanding geopolitical regions (since it is a dictionary about "usage of English" particularly British, as you have said in other talks), but for now I accept it as a reference for "North America" meaning the US and Canada, not because it says so, but because it is world-wide knowledge. Just remember the subarticle is not about "usage" of the terms presented, but about real geopolitical areas. I'll try to look for a better reliable source.

And however, and most importantly, geopolitical regions are not defined by a third party entity (particularly not a dictionary), but by the countries and their interactions politically, economically. Mexico has no political committment with the region of CA, and CA Governments do not consider Mexico a CA nation. An easy example that proves my point is that Mexico was never invited/planned to be part of the Central American Parliament (a supranational political body) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? Actually, all of the relevant articles indicate that Mexico is uncommonly or occasionally -- not never -- included in Central America geopolitically (an element of human geography), and a number of sources indicate that. If it so happens that the US and Canada only are reckoned in North America, then it follows that Mexico (in that instance) must be elsewhere. The citations clearly support the edits, so stop saying they do not. And, fundamentally, the only geopolitical divisions of the Americas are the states themselves.

As well, Middle America may be a variety of regions -- it comprises the mid-latitudes of the Americas (geophysical, if that) AND comprises Mexico, CA, WI (geopolitical, political geography) AND is essentially the northern region of Latin America in North America (cultural). I will also seek added sources; until then, I'm standing pat. Corticopia 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Geopolitically, Mexico is not part of CA, as per the above talk. And again, Fowler is not a reliable source for geopolitics, since it is just a dictionary of english usage. Denying the existence of geopolitc areas (by saying the states are the only geopolitical divisions) is just pushing a POV. Again, geopolitics areas are not created based in what a dictionary says, or a third party says, but in the political, economic, militar relations between the states. Middle America is NOT a geopolitical area/region, but just a merely geographic region when a specific geographic model is applied to the Americas. However, if you say that "relevant articles" indicate that Mexico is geopolitically in CA, then please indicate them.

Also, if you want to include the geographic (not geopolitcal) region of Middle America, then North America (Americas) should be included also (per NPOV it was included, and you deleted it, and you just left Middle America). After all, this is an article about the terminology used in the Americas. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion about what is reliable; more than just one source validates the content. Feel free to add NA (region) appropriately. Corticopia 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Alex. Fowler is indeed a reputable source but it is reporting English usage (or colloquial usage) not geopolitical terms. In geopolitics Mexico is included in North America, as it was agreed to report in Mexico#Geography. --theDúnadan 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on? D., this seems to counter (I think) your prior statements in Mexico regarding Middle America. Please explain.

In what ways? --theDúnadan 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you previously indicated that the countries of Middle America are "culturally, linguistically and historical(ly) related". How can they not be politically related ... even though the pre-Columbian cultures long since unified Mexico and its Central American neighbours in an ethnohistorical/cultural context and, as a result of the Spanish conquest, the Spanish language (per Latin America) later did so in a linguistic/historical context? Also note the former Federal Republic of Central America, which cut across the current state borders. Do these not point to a geopolitical relationship, even if moribund -- geopolitics is not limited to "right now." And do we assume that there are no unifying political relationships among these countries despite their shared history? Anyhow, I will research the underpinnings of Middle America and report back shortly. Corticopia 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I still can't understand what you are trying to say. Please elaborate. But, from what I understand you're saying, note that pre-Columbian civilizations in Mesoamerica were far from unified (and at the end only weakly unified under a tributary system), but culturally and linguistically diverse, that is why to this date more than 60 languages have survived, and it was that diversity which brought the collapse of all, not the mere 300 Spaniards alone. Now, the Spanish conquest created a cultural and linguistic relationship, but I cannot extrapolate that to current geopolitics. The Federal Republics of Central America did not include Mexico; Chiapas had seceded before its formation. I do see a strong geopoltical [and cultural, and economical and linguistic] union of all Central American countries, but I fail to see Mexico's relationship to it. But I am not be getting your point. --theDúnadan 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK: read this article about what are referred to as 'shatterbelts' in the Americas. I hope this clarifies things. More to follow. Corticopia 02:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, it doesn't clarify things. Even within the article Mexico is grouped with North America (US+Canada). I don't get your point. What is it that you are trying to prove? --theDúnadan 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While grouping the three NA countries together, the article also clearly indicates that Middle America is a region of some geopolitical import, a historic (touched on above) and contemporary 'shatterbelt' in history and in world affairs (e.g., a buffer where "local states' rivalries in the Caribbean basin became linked to Cold War strategic rivalries that brought the world to its closest potential for nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962"; involvement in the Monroe Doctrine, etc. That's basically what I'm trying to demonstrate; I will expand when I can research and source further. Corticopia 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where? I couldn't find the world "Middle America" at all in the article. --theDúnadan 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Middle America is mentioned a number of times in the article (e.g., in the introduction, in listing of shatterbelts) -- I would suggest a thorough read before jumping to conclusions. I can't comment on commentary below, but I'll research and get back to you. Corticopia 13:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And most importantly, Middle America means Mex, CA and the Caribbean. There is no such a geopolitical region, because if Mexico and CA have very weak political/economical links, those links are almost non existent between Mexico and the Caribbean. If Middle America were a geopolitical region, Mexico and the other 2 areas should be actively cooperating politically/economically and even military, and that's not happening and it is not seeked by any of the three components. Instead, the political/economical ties between the three countries of the North American region (Can, US, Mex) is not only strong, but is increasing and a deeper unity is seeked by the three countries. The European Intelligence agency in their report about the world in 2025 didn't even mention Mexico in Latin America (I'm trying to find the damn link). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, me re/moving the region of North America was based on the notion that it is not sourced; I still do not see any source indicating that the region of North America comprises just those three countries, or is strictly limited to the ones listed per se. Please provide; if I removed this in error or haste, my apologies.

As well, before any of you get too carried away with original (and perhaps subjective) assumptions about this and that, particularly about what geopolitics is and what comprise geopolitical regions in this venue, please consult at least some materials that further demonstrate the point that Middle America (at least as its taught in a number of institutions) is a germane geopolitical region and topic of analysis:

• [4]: course curriculum about Political geography, including "North and Middle America I Review of physical and geopolitical features" etc.
• similar phrasing at SUNY, plus interrelatedness of local/regional/international entities in geopolitics
• [5], [6] - note the regions of analysis

I believe in most (I will check), references specifically corroborate the reckonings in Fowler's Fowler's. Anyhow, I don't have time to respond at length now (and won't to AlexCovarrubias lengthy plea elsewhere), but I will in the next day or so with detailed references (e.g., consulting volumes noted above). Otherwise, I defer to prior comments. Suffice to say that geopolitics is not as rigidly framed as some would have us believe and the article must be refactored to be both accurate and impartial, which this article now isn't. Corticopia 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Those references don't prove anything. One thing is a geopolitical study/analysis of a particular set of countries (e.g. US-Mexico, European Union-Middle East, Canada-Latin America) and another thing is the existing geopolitical regions in the continent, that are based in political cooperation, economic ties and even militar or security policies. It would be foolish to say, for example, that Canada and Mexico make up a geopolitical region on their own, because they are in the same geographical region (North America) and because they have a FTA, the NAFTA. Instead, there could be a particular study about geopolitics between the two countries, after all geopolitics are defined as the "study of states and the relations between them".

Geopolitical regions/areas are diferent, as I already said in multiple times, they are defined by the political, economical ties between countries. There are no economical/political ties or interests between Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean (Middle America) to call it a geopolitical region. Instead, the ties within the CA countries; and the ties within the Caribbean nations, clearly establish them as separate geopolitical regions. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, I think I provided a lengthy list of references concerning Mexico's locations geopolitical or otherwise in Talk:Mexico. I am not denying the fact that "Middle America" is also used, but my "opinion" is based on that lenghty list of references, many if not most of which either do not even mention Middle America and do not (except one) consider Mexico to be a Central American country geopolitically. Having a source that backs a point of view while a lengthy list has already been provided seems unnecessary. That's why I am surprised this discussion is still going on in here. --theDúnadan 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: you provided a list of references (which I do not challenge per se), and others also exist. I am not arguing that Central America does not usually include Mexico: it is the assertions that it never does (in any sense, geopolitically/historically) that is irksome and false. As well, just because a term is not noted in the references cited, that doesn't exclude other reputable ones that do. Further to that and the above, I am researching Middle America and will report back shortly.

And, yes: it still is necessary. If you wonder why this discussion is still going on: part of the reason -- North America (Americas). This is, IMO, effectively a point-of-view fork of North America: none of the sources listed there indicate it is a region -- they do say other things -- and there's absolutely no reason why this information cannot be incorporated into North America (if not already). As well, the instigating editor -- who is continuing to ram a point-of-view down our collective throats -- adds notations of this nebulous region in a variety of spots while minimising (read: undue weight) sourced information about Middle America (the Dow references indicates its a cultural region (which contains Mesoamerica). (Anyhow, I will be recommending its contents be merged with North America and deleted. Corticopia 10:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a lie. I never deleted "Middle America" as you accused me here (because now you have deleted your accusation), I changed its position in the article (from geopolitic region to geographic regions). And I think the Dow reference is about the term "Middle America" as a translation for "Mesoamerica" (not the current Middle America) as you indicated in the talk page Mesoamerica. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I should qualify this: you placed Middle America upfront, yes, but did not place it where it arguably belongs as well -- in the Cultural section. As for Dow, now who's confusing the issue? The Dow reference -- regardless of what you "think" it says -- specifically indicates upfront that "Middle America is the culture area that includes all the cultures south of the United States to the borders of Colombia" (sic) (essentially the North American portion of Latin America) and that "Mesoamerica is a sub-area of Middle America." Generally, they are two different concepts which coincide with similar names. Corticopia 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you clarify that in fact I didn't erase the term from the article as you accused me here (now you edited your comment and deleted the acussation). However, you can't blame me for "not placing it ALSO in the cultural section", because the term was never included there since I started editing this article. Also, I did not have any reference saying Middle America was a "cultural region". I'll check your source, I need to read it well to see if he's refering to nowadays Middle America or to Mesoamerica. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: sorry about that -- the article has undergone significant revisions recently and since it was created. Anyhow, the Dow reference is here. He does clearly differentiates between the two, including one (Mesoamerica) within the larger region (Middle America). Corticopia 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if this is true and author Dow defines Middle America as a cultural area, that's only one reference. Perhaps that is his opinion based in his research. I think you should bring more sources (one opinion is not enough), because I have never heard Middle America being defined as a cultural area (e.g. Mexico and the Caribbean have very little in common), just as a geographic region, the most extended and easily verifiable knowledge. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot discount verifiable information and dismiss such 'opinions' -- again -- so easily. If I had to choose between the opinion of a published prof and a number of publications and (effectively) an anonymous Wikipedian in Monterrey, you shouldn't have to ask where the preference is. Out of Oakland University (I think), he has published numerous papers on the subject. Actually, most definitions define Middle America merely as a region without qualifying it; thus, one can argue that it merits inclusion in a number of areas. More sources to follow ... Corticopia 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed the debate that closely, so I need some clarification. Corticopia, I see that in the article you are using Fowler and Oxford Dict. as sources to provide an alternative geopolitical definition of North America. I have read both, and as far as I can tell, they present "North America=US+Can" not as a geopolitical term but as common usage. I am not saying that they think geopolitically North America is US+Can+Mex. I really can't assume anything. They only present the geographical definition of the whole continent (all the way to Panama), plus the common [colloquial] usage of North America to refer to Anglo America. I wouldn't use them as a source for a "geopolitical" term. I think we can't assume anything from those two sources when it comes to geopolitics (neither US+Can nor US+Can+Mex). --theDúnadan 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure -- I understand. OK: this is within the lens that geography is comprised of two basic disciplines: physical geography (essentially, landforms and water) and human geography (as a result of anthropogenic influence and interaction). All others stem from those. A function of the latter is political geography (which, according to my Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, is effectively the same as geopolitics). When using states to describe or delineate regions (in this case geopolitical ones), we are doing so based on human geography and, yes, political geography. It stems from that since North America is frequently reckoned as just the US and Canada (and both Fowler's and Oxford indicate that), it is a geopolitical region of the Americas -- it may be other things too. Similarly, this may be why Anglo-America and Northern America are sometimes used to pair just the two countries. This doesn't deny the integration of the two countries in a truly political sense, nor does it deny the integration of the US, Canada, and Mexico -- it merely means that different terms are used to group different entities. Actually, if anything, the geopolitical definition of North American continent extends all the way to the southern border of Panama (as any number of maps/atlases will attest to when consulting a political map), and there shouldn't be an issue with that. Regarding North America (Americas), consult my comments there.

At its base, Middle America -- because it is generally defined in terms of the states that comprise it (perhaps because of a lack of other frames of reference that people generally comprehend) -- is a notion of political geography (and, per Dow, cultural geography, given the inclusion of prior Mesoamerican cultures and the linguistic unity of Spanish speaking lands in Latin America). It may also be one of physical geography -- the mid-latitudes of the Americas, which includes Mexico in the greater land bridge adjoining North and South. This also explains why Colombia and Venezuela are sometimes included. Corticopia 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also need more sources to substantiate the assertion that Middle America is a geopolitical region (though the above links I added allude to that). I'll be back later. Corticopia 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get exactly what you are trying to say. Would you please explain it to me? Are you now saying that the ONLY geopolitical definition for North America should be from Canada to Panama? God... and you are ignoring the definitions of geopolitics I pasted here. Just because the mention of the states that a geographic region comprises, that doesn't mean they make up a geopolitical region. Geopolitics are much deep than that, again, you need to read the definitions. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly -- it is the prevailing definition of North America. I'm willing to accept that there may be other definitions and it may be something else (e.g., region), but they should be dealt with in the North America article, not in a fork whose sources don't support the content. Whether NA is considered a continent or subcontinent is a matter of debate, but I have not seen a source indicating that Central America is a continent or subcontinent but a region of either. Ditto for Middle America, and I make no assertion that it is anything but a region ... of some sort.

And nothing has been ignored: according to the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations (in my possession), geopolitics (pp. 197-8) is:

• A method of foreign policy analysis which seeks to understand, explain and predict international political behaviour primarily in terms of geographical variables, such as location, size, climate, topography, demography, natural resources, and technological development and potential. Political identity and action is thus seen to be (more or less) determined by geography...

It later goes on to say that:

• [because of misuse of the term 'geopolitics' before WWII], in UK and US academic circles where the term 'political geography' was preferred to the more value-laden 'geopolitics.'

Arguably, the cultures of Mesoamerica long since unified Mexico and its Central American neighbours in an ethnohistorical/cultural context and, as a result of the Spanish conquest, the Spanish language (per Latin America) later did so in a linguistic/historical context, thereby making it a geopolitical region. That's macroanalysis (and touched on in Dow); anyhow, I've gotta go but I'll source later.

As well, there's no doubt that NAFTA has facilitated integration (continentalism), but that merely means that the trade pact has three members in North America currently. Shall we exclude Canada from North America/Americas because it wasn't a member of the OAS from 1948 to 1990? Corticopia 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we want to solve this, we should be more clear and direct. What I am saying is that I don't see where all this debate is going to. Can, Mex and US are seeking better integration, what strenghten the sourced information that they make up a geopolitical region. On the other hand, there are no equivalent efforts between CA and Mexico, or between CA, Mex and the Caribbean. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about movement, but content editions are not made in a vacuum. And we should be more clear and direct, and I may also be guilty of not being clear. Anyhow, on Dunadan's talk page, you indicated increased integration between Canada and Mexico while indicating you thought that I didn't know what I was talking about regarding geopolitics, while, here and elsewhere, minimising -- again -- current organisational and other relationships in the Americas (e.g., within 'Middle America') like CARICOM and the ethnocultural/linguistic unity of Latin America which counters that, so you seem to be cherry-picking items to suit your purpose. Corticopia 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

False. Read above, don't be hasty. I clearly indicated above that CA and the Caribbean (both inside Middle America) have more integration inside their regions: the Caribbean has the CARICOM, the Central American countries have the CA Parliament and other CA institutions. Also the CA countries negociated in group (again, because they are integrated in geopolitical sense) the CAFTA with the US. Also I mentioned that the CARICOM countries have a political agreement to vote in group in the OAS and the UN. That's geopolitics, the political/economical relations between countries. Such integration is not present between Mex, CA and the Caribbean nor seeked. They simply don't make up a geopolitical region. Just geopolitically! I'm not denying the fact that a part of Mexico is included in CA geophysically or that Mexico is not inside the geographical region of Middle America. If you remember, I conceded you with that and stopped editing the article Middle America. So, let's be direct. Exaclty what you want to change in the article? And please, be direct. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not completely false -- we agree to disagree. Anyhow, I'll be back later. Corticopia 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geopolitical North America

I just want to add that geopolitically North America comprises Canada, US and Mexico, or Canada and the US, but it never includes Greenland, St. Pierre or Bermuda. These dependencies do not politically play a role in the region. The three of them are traditionally linked to European politics more than N. American politics. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact Bermuda is more linked to the Caribbean nations, in economy, Bermuda is a CARICOM associate member, and in sports Bermuda is member of the CFU (Caribbean Football Union), on of the CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football) regional unions. JC 1 March 2007, 08:30 (PST)

'Americas' does not exist

'Americas' is just a neologism to name 'a country with no name', the United States of America. America is the right name for the whole new world (from the point of view of the Europeans, of course) after Amerigo Vespucci, who sailed for the Spanish Crown

I completely agree with you. Spread the word. Because here we can't do much. --Shadowy Crafter 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no continent named 'America'. There is North America and South America. Two separate continents. There is no 'American Hemisphere'. This is an invention of minds consumed by HATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.19.51 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"North America and South America" X "America"

I cannot say about the terminoly used by the other Latin American countries, but in Brazil people say North America and South America instead of American as sugest in note 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.179.100 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

West Indies

I do not understand the rationale behind the inclusion of the West Indies in the political divisions section. As far as I understand the purpose of this article, this section is making reference to all political divisions that make or have made use of the term "Americas" -hence British North America, and the like. The inclusion of a political division that does not include the name justifies the inclusion of any political division within the Americas, regardless of the name. I believe they should not be included in the list, as it might imply that these are the "only" political divisions within the Americas. --the Dúnadan 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is intended not merely to list and expand on all regions in the 'Americas' having 'America' in the name, but to list and clarify the 'major' constituents of the Americas too. Having the West Indies/Caribbean merely makes it more comprehensive. To put it another way: if they were missing, their absence would be obvious and would beckon for someone to add them. Corticopia 14:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of the article is not to clarify the "major" constituent of the Americas, as "major" is a subjective and interpretative term, and the selection of the "major regions" is arbitrary. Why not add economic regional constituencies (i.e. Caricom, NAFTA, Mercosur)? Why not add countries? Why not repeat the same information in Americas? The name of this article is Americas (terminology) [bold mine]. If you wish to make this article comprehensive then the title should simply be Americas. But the addendum "terminology" makes the inclusion of "West Indies" irrelevant and arbitrary. --the Dúnadan 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would support including major economic regions of the Americas in a different section (including NAFTA, CAFTA) and perhaps relevant military and other groupings like NORAD. Anyhow, including the other regions of the Americas merely makes the article comprehensive (as an encylopedic article should be): compare with Macedonia (terminology), British Isles (terminology), which contain entities not eponymously named... Corticopia 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you've engaged in an edit war, in which I choose not to participate. My first edit was WP:BOLD, your subsequent edits are WP:OWN. In any case, the expansion of this article will only make it a duplicate (or an unnecessary fork) or Americas. I've expressed my opinion, I've been reverted. I'm done here. --the Dúnadan 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what BRD means: you boldly edit (or in this case delete), you are reverted based on a rational argument (with examples), and we then discuss. The entries of note have been in place preety much since the article was created. But with attitude as above, good luck to you. Corticopia 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) You were also reverted based on a rational argument. But you kept reverting. I will not engage in an edit war... and I'll avoid the headache. I have enough knowledge of your edit-pattern to know that it will lead us nowhere; (2) Deletion is an edit, as valid as addition. Editing can be deleting, arranging or adding. I don't know what you intended to say with your comment. (3) Even if the entries of note have been pretty much since the article was created, that doesn't mean they are appropriate. You know, status quo doesn't mean "perfect". Many an article has been in an "unperfect" condition, until someone challenged the status quo. (4) Expanding this article will only make it a duplicate of Americas. (4) Good luck to you too. --the Dúnadan 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Corticopia 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

North America (geopolitical region)

The sources given did not support the region NA = Canada + USA + Mexico. The American Heritage Reference Collection (really MSN Encarta) [7] gave North America as composed of Canada, the USA, Mexico, Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia [8] includes Canada, the USA, Mexico, and the West Indies although it excludes Greenland. Spacepotato 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The references are fine, however I have added another source from the Michigan State University. In other topic, I understand the recent removal of the North American Region description from the article, but not the removal of the North American region map. You said it was "redundant" or "overlaping", well, so it Central, Northern and Middle America, all regions of the North American continent. I'm adding the map back. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I see your point, the Crystal Reference Ecyclopedia was modified and I guess they added the West Indies. However, there's a new ref. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How little we forget about North America (Americas) -- these same points were made when that article fork was successfully nominated for deletion. Corticopia 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps

I think it would improve the article to remove some of the large number of small maps, each showing one region, and introduce larger maps illustrating more than one region. This would also have the advantage of illustrating the various ways of subdividing the Americas. I have prepared some possible maps below. Colombia has been included as a possible member of Central America on the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (entry for central.) Spacepotato 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Division of the Americas into North and South America
• 
  Division of the Americas into North, Central and South America and the West Indies
• 
  Division of the Americas into North, Middle and South America
• 
  Territories that may be included in more than one region
• 
  UN geoscheme for the Americas

C0

The general idea is fine, but those maps are incorrec. Mexico is not geographically included in Central America. Some (not all) geographers include the portion east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec physiographically in Central America.

We're dealing here with geographical terms, not "usage" terms. Some people might incorrectly use "central america" as containing Mexico, but again, it is a matter of usage, not of geography. Also I noticed how you created geographical maps but failed to create political maps. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is primarily about the different ways the Western Hemisphere has been divided into regions, whether by geographers or others. As for whether these maps are physical or political, I would say that they are a mixture of both; but the intent is simply to clarify the meaning of the terms.

Putting the issue of the extent of Central America aside, what is your view of the other three maps? Spacepotato 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes: this articles deals with terminology ... and that entails (generally English) usage. Corticopia 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I disagree, if you read the article, there's physical geography amnd political geography or geopolitics. There's not "usage" definitions, and I think that's a good thing. So I believe the map including Mexico in Central America should be redesigned. For example, the current map on Central America highlights in pale green the areas that are sometimes physiographically included as part of C.A.

I also noticed how you tagged "North America" the region north of "Middle America". As the article "Middle America" says, when using that model "Northern America" is the region to the north. That has to be fixed too.

As I already said, I think the idea of these maps is good, because they kinda simplify the article, I like the idea, with those reservations of course. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Spacepotato, I've fixed the maps. I'm also creating a map with the zones that might be included in other regions as southern Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama. I was wondering if I should use the same image as a base or just a regular map that only shows these countries. Please reply. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added a gallery to show all the maps. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'territories that may be included in more than one region' map is arguably a POV map and should not be included, since it is unclear and theoretically applies to any territory in the Americas. It also exhibits the Yucatán as being an entity separate from the bulk of Mexico. Corticopia 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The current map for "Central America" (that you like) also exhibits the Yucatán Peninsula as a "separate entity" from Mexico. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the original map, the western frontier of Yucatán does not have a thin black border, but the recently created one does -- this implies that Yucatán and northwestern Mexico are two separate entities. Corticopia 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Personally, I like the simplicity of the prior maps: they cleanly and clearly exhibit regions of the Americas. The prior ones also allow for leeway (e.g., dark green for usual reckonings, light green for areas that may be occasionally included in x (see Central America map). Showing the half-globe of the Western Hemisphere (i.e., centered on the Americas) is probably the best choice for this article. That being said, the recent maps clearly exhibit differences or counterpoints between/among regions -- perhaps some of these maps can be consolidated and animated to cycle between slides of regions in some particular sequence (e.g., bigger > smaller; see Macedonia (terminology)) As well, perhaps an Anglo-America/Latin America map can be added? In a similar vein, I like the Venn diagram in use at British Isles (terminology), which may achieve the same as some of these maps. Corticopia 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As well, the entry that Spacepotato alludes to above from Oxford is a valid reference (and not uncommon in usage); see 'North America#Usage', 'subregion' -- explain again why we should not be exhibiting such a map with others? Corticopia 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said we should not create/add a map of usage terms. I said the current article doesn't include usage definitions. An usage map and definitions can be included, of course. And because I know where you are heading to, I'd also like to remind you that North America is also a region comprising only the three countries. That is also, of course, going to be added in the article (if an usage section is included) an in the map (if created). AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse the issue; actually, the article does make reference upfront to usage, with references throughout. And one of the maps already proposed includes the 'region' you speak of ... but if you decide to add a superfluous entry to the article, it will be challenged if not referenced adequately. And, in response, a map exhibiting the Oxford usage regarding North America may also have to be added to balance it out. If you already know where this is going, save yourself the trouble and add an economic group with NAFTA as one of its entries.

Anyhow, we are digressing from the other comments made. Corticopia 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it was an "usage" reference, so I have deleted it. The subsection is about geopolitical regions, and an english usage reference is not valid there. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's valid. I have restored it, any will continue to. Don't delete verifiable information for singular reasons regarding usage. Corticopia 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. North America can refer collectively to Canada, the U.S.A., and Mexico, but it has many other possible meanings as well, and adding the word region doesn't narrow the semantics much. I think one of the conclusions to be drawn is that the term North America has definite meaning only when part of a larger classificatory scheme. (When opposed to South America, for example, it includes Guatemala, but when opposed to Central and South America, it does not.) This is one of the reasons I think it better to show more than one region per map.
2. Middle America can be opposed to Northern and South America, but it can also be opposed to North and South America. For examples of this latter terminology, see pp. 30–31 in the text Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts, de Blij and Muller, Wiley, 12th ed., 2005 (ISBN 047171786X), or p. 14 of Latin America: Regions and People, Robert B. Kent, Guilford: 2006 (ISBN 1572309091).
3. Although the article has headings labeled geophysical regions and geopolitical regions, if you look at the references, you'll see that they are chiefly simply encyclopedia or dictionary entries for the areas in question, rather than works which address physical geography or geopolitics. The difference between the two sections is only that the first defines its regions in physical terms and the second as agglomerations of countries. Also, the article discusses cultural, linguistic, etc. regions. Therefore, I conclude that, as its title implies, this article is primarily about terminology.

Spacepotato 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in that the references should be updated accordingly to the sections. I think nobody has noted that because the article is stable and the information is correct and not that controversial, other way we would have tons of people modifying the article. However, references are a must. I have added three for geopolitical North America. Finally, each region/division is defined in the appropiate context, that's why the sections are so useful. I believe adding a usage section may be important. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to propose the following table, I think it's pretty self explanatory, what do you guys think? Supaman89 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the Americas
Map	Legend
	North America (NA)   South America (SA)   May be included in        either NA or SA
	North America (NA)   May be included in NA   Central America   Caribbean   South America
	North America (NA)   May be included in NA        Northern America   Middle America (MA)   Caribbean (may be         included in MA)   South America (SA)   May be included         in MA or SA
	Anglo-America (A-A)   May be included in A-A   Latin America (LA)   May be included in LA

Hiya, I like the table, it covers all the different models, but I think Greenland is missed in the 2nd map and should colored as part of North America. JC 18:21, 11 October 2007 (PST)

The table is OK; the last option is rather contorted, since Middle America generally includes countries or cultures "south of the United States to the borders of Columbia" [sic ]) -- this could be improved with better syntax.

Also remember that there is a physiographic description for Middle America that may be deserving of depiction -- consult that article. In essence, the northern frontier of the isthmus (southern tip of Rockies) would jut into the southern US or be formed from a line adjoining the northern tip of the Sea of Cortés to Aransas (Texas), so it wouldn't correspond to any national border.

Historical entities can also be depicted, e.g., British colonies ... Corticopia 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of the colored regions in these maps lack captions. Third map: Anglo-America and Latin America have gray areas (e.g. the inclusion of Quebec, etc. in Anglo-America and Jamaica, Belize, etc. in Latin America) which are not shown. Also, Greenland should be colored off-white (the color of other regions not included in the scheme) rather than gray. Fourth map: In this model, the term Middle America appears to be opposed to North and South America more often than Northern and South America; North, Middle and South is the scheme used by de Blij and Muller. The West Indies are not indicated separately, although they are not always included in Middle America[9][10][11]. Finally, I think larger maps would be better for this article. Here is a revised version. Spacepotato 23:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the Americas
North America	South America
May be included in either North or South America
North America; may include	Central America
West Indies	South America
North America; may include	Middle America; may include   West Indies
May be included in either Middle or South America
South America
Anglo-America; may include	Latin America; may include

The edits made by Corticopia has been reverted. English usage has nothing to do with the real areas, divisions or territories. English usage merely indicate the way the terms are used in one particular language, without scientifical, geographical, geopolitical or whatever backing: usage only refers on how people that speak a certain language use a word/term.

So, a section about usage of the terminology related to the Americas should be included to add this references. All other editors involved that haven't read the above debate should read it, it is about the geopolitcal terms. [12] AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 04:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the usage of terminology. That's why it's called Americas (terminology). Compare British Isles (terminology). The reality is that the Americas contain a large parcel of land extending from southern Argentina to northern Canada, plus outlying islands. The division of this area is merely conventional, and this article deals with what those conventions are. So, I disagree with your suggestion that a usage section should be added. Spacepotato 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Sp. Corticopia 23:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I just added the table. Supaman89 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the table. See my comments above. Spacepotato 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Well, it is been a couple of days since it was proposed to merge Sub-regions of the Americas‎ and this article, therefore I'll proceed to merge them as soon as I can. Supaman89 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is a good idea. The articles are about different things; one is on Americas terminology in general, and the other is part of a uniform series of articles (Subregions of Asia, etc.) dealing exclusively with the UN geoscheme. Spacepotato 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article also talks about the UN geoscheme, and the information in the other article could be easily included in this one, if they are kept separately it would be like having one article for the subdivisions according to the CIA and another one according to World bank, etc. Supaman89 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to merge the articles (Subregions of Africa, Sub-regions of the Americas, Subregions of Asia, Subregions of Europe, and Subregions of Oceania) dealing with the UN geoscheme into United Nations geoscheme. Spacepotato 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think those are too many articles to be merged into one, it's better if we keep them separated and organized, like this:
Supaman89 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Subregions of Africa
• Subregions of the Americas (merged with this article)
• Subregions of Asia
• Subregions of Europe
• Subregions of Oceania

I agree with Spacepotato, and oppose the proposed merger: this article is not merely about subregions, but about usage of applicable terms (e.g., political/historical entities so named). If anything, this article should remain discrete (just as those dealing with the terminology of the British Isles and Macedonia are). Consensus must be reached before doing any merges, and it doesn't exist herein by any measure.

Moreover, why was 'Subregions of the Americas' moved to 'Sub-regions of the Americas'? While not technically incorrect, the other articles omit the hyphen -- so should that one. Corticopia 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"America"

The usage of "America" is up for discussion, see talk:America -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Americas (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515192216/http://www.grec.cat/ to http://www.grec.cat/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520110306/http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/conshist/pdf/1814.pdf to http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/conshist/pdf/1814.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americas (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315225339/http://www.diputados.gob.mx/cedia/museo/sala3_mas.htm to http://www.diputados.gob.mx/cedia/museo/sala3_mas.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)