Jump to content

Talk:Central America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 120.16.228.195 (talk) at 17:14, 25 October 2020 (→‎Mexico not included?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

images

the animated gif 300px-Political_Evolution_of_Central_America_and_the_Caribbean_1700_and_on.gif is just to cumbersome for such a presentation, because : (*1) it's heavy almost 1 meg (*2) most users would like to click on the year to see what was the past geopolitics instead of waiting for nmfdjfhknfc97r ewhy o sqigaly line in my eye wat up images, giving the user the freedom to click where he/she wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.223.154 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities

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

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

Disambig

I dont mind a disambig page and a link at the top of the article but I strongly opbkect to the SS Central America being put at the top, it gets in the way, SqueakBox 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would be surprised if there are many readers that arrive at this page when they are searching for the ship. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring your point here Morse instead of reverting, SqueakBox 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SS Central America is a very famous ship for two reasons: and at the time of the disaster it was one of the deadliest ship disasters ever. The second reason is due to its cargo of Californian gold rush gold, worth approx 2 bn US dollars.[1], which gave the ship its nickname "Ship of Gold". The otheruses template is supposed to be at the top of the page and for exactly this reason.--MoRsE 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A disambig page is acceptable though note that Cornwall (disambiguation) fails to mention the ship that has been notably in the headlines of late, SqueakBox 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This disambiguation is not only acceptable but required at this point: it is foolhardy to not have any link from main articles to the lesser-known ship of the same name (e.g., see America (disambiguation)). The disambiguation -- which I created earlier -- should fulfill this function and solve this issue. Anyhow, it's likely that Cornwall hasn't been updated yet merely due to online chaos. :) Corticopia 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But equally mentioning this US ship in the opening on Central America, which has nothing to do with the US, was unacceptabl;e, SqueakBox
I'm not arguing with that, hence the necessity for a disambiguation. :) Corticopia 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Table

I recently added a table that the lists the populations of each country. In the process of preparing the table I discovered that the data in List of countries by population is ofen different than the data listed on the pages for each country. The talk page at the list article has a lengthy discussion regarding the proper source for the data. The outcome was a recommendation to use the UN figures from the 2004 report World Population Prospects (which provides estimates for July 1, 2005). That is the source of the data in this table. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No real argument, but I've (re-)added context regarding Belize and Panama which (according to some) may not be included in the region for various reasons. Please copyedit. :) Corticopia 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Prep

A proposal has been made at WikiProject Central America to make this article the first collaboration for the project. In preparation for that event, I have moved discussion content from previous years to an archive page following the procedure described at WP:ARCHIVE. If you feel that this article should or should not be the first focal point for the project, please join the discussion. I realize that some important discussions have been moved to the archive. Please refer to that page before starting a new dialog about which countries should be included and/or excluded from this page. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Geography Section

This section should not be confused with geographical, geological or physiographical content. This is the case of the previous paragraph dedicated to Mexico. Verifiable but wrongly placed sentences as "some geographers include the 4 states of Mexico in CA" is geographical content not human geography. Aditionally it was very clear that physiographically some geographers consider that CA starts at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That information is already included in the proper section. Plus is you check the article Mexico and North America you will find that Mexico is not often geopolitically included in CA (information inserted by user Corticopia in the article Mexico, that now is "confusing" physical geography with human geography in this particular article). It is specially false to claim that geopolitically a part of Mexico is considered CA. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion: there is clearly a list of five Mexican states (political divisions) -- elements of human geography -- that some geographers include in Central America -- which you continually confuse and remove. Other points are not generally in dispute (e.g., commonality), which the current content accommodates. Corticopia 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the states is not to indicate that geopolitically they are in CA, but only as a geographical reference. Geopolitically no country divide its territory to play in another geopolitical entity. That would be ridiculous and contradictory to geopolitics. I am from Mexico and I know that Mexico as a whole or in part is geopolitically in Central America.
It is important to note that the reference you are citing (Britannica) clearly indicates what is primarily considered Central America, and then as a secondary info, it says that some (not all, not the majority) of geographers also include in the region 5 Mexican states.
Central America. It extends from the southern border of Mexico to the northwestern border of Colombia and from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. It includes Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Some geographers also include five states of Mexico: Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Campeche, Tabasco, and Chiapas.
So, why are you ignoring this important information? However, the main issue here is that the section is about Human Geography not geography alone. This is about some information that is not supoused to be in the Human Geography section. Plus there is a wikipolicy called Be bold in editing. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Nothing is being ignored: this first (prevalent) meaning is both prominent and clearly indicated in this article. And nothing is contradictory -- countries are subdivided geopolitically all the time -- that is what a political division (in this case, for Mexico) is. And if (as you say above) you know that Mexico in whole or in part is in Central America (not just geopolitically), then you shouldn't have an issue with the content. Afte all: some of the country was in the prior Federal Republic of Central America, and parallel mentions are also made of Panama and Belize.Lastly , please dont't try to confusebe bold when you seem all to eager to remove cited content continuously to push a viewpoint. Corticopia 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, states in the case of Mexico are geopolitical entities, internal entities. The main clue here is the word internal. Internal geopolitics are very different than international geopolitics. Mexico, as a whole geopolitical entity (country) is not included in CA. And even if the state of Chiapas once was part of the short-lived Central American Republic, that happened in the 19th century. It has nothing to do with nowadays geopolitics. LOL? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? And you seem to glaze over a number of sources that still do include Mexico in Central America -- I am not debating that this is relatively uncommon. However, you continually remove this information and reframe it to push your point of view. Information regarding Mexican states belongs in the section about human geography, not physical geography (as there are no such entities in a physiographic sense, though there are the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the volcanic belt which are mentioned in that section). It is already very clear what is being said -- e.g., "occasionally", which another editor added. And, yes, this is laughable. Corticopia 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That information about the 5 Mexican states is not geopolitical, even if the definition of "state" is geopolitical. It is highly irrational that a country as a whole is "divided" in international geopolitics. No country in the world do that. So, adding the sentence clarifying that Mexico is not frequently listed in CA is important, because, as you said it is relatively uncommon, so it should be properly clarified. Only saying that "ocassionally" is not enough. Articles North America and Mexico clearly indicates that this is uncommon in a very direct language. I just used almos the identical words used in those articles. And I am not removing citations, I add it back. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making sense. Many countries are divided in international politics: the United States (Alaska, Hawaii), Russia (Europe/Asia), Turkey, Egypt, ... And all have political subdivisions, and some straddle different continents. Your addition clarifies nothing, while you remove information elsewhere, since the point is already clearly made that Mexico is only occasionally included in Central America (e.g., not included at all in current table). And, generally, in moving content nonsensically, the quality of your edits are poor and diminishes the article. Until others weigh in overwhelmingly to support you, I will continue to restore content that survived your surgery without a rumble. Corticopia 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any point of contention against the fact that several sources still do refer to parts of Mexico as a part of Central America. To say that Mexico has to be wholly or not at all a part of a geopolitical region does not make sense. We're talking about a somewhat loosely-defined region here; that's understood from the start of the article. No one is saying that five subregions of Mexico are part of the UN or some international treaty organization without the rest of the country. Context matters, and it is not at all inconsistent to say that parts of Mexico are historically or ethnically understood to be linked to the region, while politically and geographically the modern nation of Mexico is not. Feeeshboy 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Central Americans do not consider Mexico a part of CA, legally, politically, geographically or in any other way, SqueakBox 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that's part of the problem: it's not just about what Central Americans think, but what citations indicate. Corticopia 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree though I think we need cites for what Central Americans think and what Mexicans think as the priority. I will try to get my head round this more later (problems at work!), SqueakBox 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK: please note that this is already the case, with the article giving proportional weight to this perspective -- i.e., Mexico not in table, "occasionally", at the end of the article, relatively brief minor points, with citations. Other recent edits have dulled this point (and confused the issue) or have attempted to remove it completely. Corticopia 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an Usage of the term section, including the English and Spanish usage of Central America, both are the official languages of this region. JC 12:15, 22 February 2007 (PST)

That usage section seems a bit long and redundant, but I don't have a better solution to put forward right now that will satisfy all perspectives. Perhaps someone more expert than I can also add a bit explaining the difference between the term "Central America" and "Mesoamerica?" Feeeshboy 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mesoamerica is a term used in history to describe a particular region of the Americas where important cultures (Aztecs, Mayas, Olmecs, Toltecs) flourished before the arrival of Europeans to this continent. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the section is rather redundant and can be improved still, but is somewhat passable for now. I do believe, though, it is begging for someone to consolidate and prune it ... particularly someone who may challenge that the Americas comprise a single continent and/or believe the interpretations regarding usage to be original. Anyhow ... Corticopia 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes; also, Mesoamerica literally means "mid(dle of) America" - Mes(o)- + America; it is subsumed by the larger region now sometimes known as Middle America which includes Mexico, the republics of Central America, and (usually) the Caribbean. Corticopia 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note. The term Mesoamerica is not a direct equivalent to english term "Middle America". Middle America can be referring to "Mesoamerica" (historical term) or to the current use where Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean are included. However I noted that "Mesoamerica" is a very widely used term in english when referring to the historial precolombine cultural region. If you Google "Middle America" you will note that most of the results refer to the second definition. Also there are other definitions. Very confusing term. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are only somewhat correct: the two terms are direct equivalents literally (just look at the etymology for meso-); it is the definitions and currency of the various terms that differ. Nothing else is in dispute, but (through your Google search) you just demonstrated why this prior 'minor' edit (removal without any edit comment,as before) is unjustified. And, as we all know, there are many terms with a variety of meanings and possible confusion -- like America -- and that's why (in Wikipedia) we must cite sources to clarify things. That's life. Corticopia 10:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article I stumbled upon by the OECD entitled OECD Territorial Reviews: The Mesoamerican Region: Southeastern Mexico and Central America. As you can see and as noted beforehand, the term Mesoamerica is still in current use to describe the region (namely the land bridge) ... and in a geopolitical (particularly socioeconomic) sense. Given this, some of the recent content editions in this article and related articles may have to be refactored. Corticopia 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panama's transcontinality

I submit that the following paragraph is not well-written. I am not going to revert or re-edit right now, but I want to clarify my feelings. Here is the paragraph:

Panama, situated on the Isthmus of Panama, is a transcontinental territory: the Panama Canal (a bypass connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) transects the isthmus, which connects North and South America. All of the country—including the segment east of the Panama Canal—is often considered a part of North America alone. Historically, however, Panama was a possession of the Viceroyalty of New Granada, a Spanish jurisdiction largely situated in northwestern South America from 1717 to 1819. When Panama declared independence from Spain on 28 November 1821, it immediately declared a union with la Gran Colombia (Greater Colombia) and later became a department/state of Colombia until its independence on 3 November 1903.

First of all, I am completely confused by the location of the paragraph's reference to the canal. What is the point of even mentioning it in a paragraph whose ostensible purpose is to discuss whether or not Panama is, in fact, a transcontinental country? Oh, certainly I can come up with such reasons—and in fact, because they were not clear earlier, I included them in a revised version of the paragraph that has since been reverted. I also think it is ridiculous—in this article— to include the parenthetical statement that the canal is a "bypass" between the two oceans. Besides appearing juvenile as written, it is entirely unnecessary. If by some chance someone reading this does not know what the Panama Canal is, a blue link is all that is necessary. This is supposed to be about Panama's transcontinality.

Then the writer continues relating to us the history of Panama until independence, with absolutely no explanation of how or why these political changes might have affected the status of Panama as a transcontinental country. I submit that, to the majority of readers hoping to learn something here, that they will be left confused.

This was my version of the paragraph:

Panama, situated on the Isthmus of Panama, is alternately regarded as either a transcontinental territory or as a part of North American alone. The isthmus connects North America and South America; if the border between Panama and Colombia is also regarded as the "border" between the continents, than Panama is exclusively North American. However, the Panama Canal transects the isthmus, and, though man-made, can also make for a convenient demarcation between the continents, which would then make Panama truly transcontinental. Historically, Panama's situation has changed a number of times. Panama was a possession of the Viceroyalty of New Granada, a Spanish jurisdiction largely situated in northwestern South America from 1717 to 1819, during which time is was clearly transcontinental. When Panama declared independence from Spain on 28 November 1821, it immediately declared a union with la Gran Colombia (Greater Colombia), and was later created a department/state of Colombia. It so remained until its independence was proclaimed on 3 November 1903, at which point few geographers would have questioned that Panama was situated entirely within North America. But in 1914, with the completion of the canal, it was now possible to argue that Panama was again, transcontinental.

The rewrite that I did was by no means perfect. I felt it was a bit long for the subject covered. But it was internally logical and comprehensible. From the other editor's version the reader can infer that Panama's status as a transcontinental country is not universally accepted (All of the country . . . is often [emphasis added] considered a part of North America alone), but there is no explanation as to why this is a matter of question.

I will not revert at this time, as perhaps someone can tell me where I've gone wrong in my reading of this. Unschool 01:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph isn't perfect (perhaps only the first sentence needs to be edited), but your edits represent one big non sequitur, dwelling unnecessarily on the canal. Why, from a human geographical perspective, does Panama belong to this or that continent? Your rewrite doesn't really answer that. Corticopia 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you've really lost me now. As far as I'm concerned, the canal need not be mentioned at all. I'd leave it out entirely, as it is man-made, and continental divisions (IMHO) are not determined by man's works. However, the previous editor(s) had mentioned the canal, within the same sentence as the statement about transcontinality. That, to me, constituted a genuine non sequitur. My first thought was to delete the reference to the canal as irrelevant, but I thought the matter over and tried to ascertain why that was included there. The only thing that I could think of (because I've had students suggest it over the years) is that the writer saw the canal as the actual demarcation between continents. If that is indeed what the writer was thinking, it was not clear to me, nor can I see how anyone could deduce this from the wording. My additional comments about the canal's history as it related to the transcontinality were merely an attempt (obviously unsuccessful, at least per your reading of it) to make some sense of the mention of the canal. Believe me, I'd have no problem deleting any mention of the canal in this paragraph, if you concur.
Having said that, some questions remain to be answered before I can understand where you are coming from.
  • In your opinion, Corticopia, where is the division between North and South America?
  • What does the transcontinality of Panama exactly have to do with human geography?
I look forward to continuing this discussion. Unschool 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both make very valid points here. I too had guessed that the canal was considered important because it is, technically, a waterway between North America and South America, and thus topographically and superficially it appears to divide the two continents. I don't think that much needs to be said about this at all, however, as the article is about Central America, not the division between North and South America. I feel that it is enough to say that Panama was formerly part of Gran Colombia, because the section heading is Human Geography, as Corticopia points out. Panama's status as a transcontinental nation can be left for other articles to discuss. Feeeshboy 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I shall make the changes. Unschool 01:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've eliminated all references to the canal, and kept the history as simple as possible, given that this is not a history article. What do you think? Unschool 01:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. :) However, I think we can retain the historical details (1719-1903), as this provides context regarding the human geography of (constituents of) this region. Corticopia 05:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Guanacaste

The article says Guanacaste belonged to Nicaragua, when in fact it used to be independent before annexing to Costa Rica.74.96.211.250 03:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

central america is in north america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.128.203 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello! I am a reader and this is very interesting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.41.90 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central America Mountains

I'am looking for cental america mountains names —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.249.108 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Republic

Why is this nation being included in Central America in some parts of this article? It is not. Central America consists of 7 nations, and for some purposes, a portion of Mexico. The Dominican Republic is not included any more than Colombia or any other nearby Spanish speaking nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.200.2 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yoyoyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.125.135 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing to same source multiple times

Not that I'm interested of your topic, but happened to see your 3 pages long reference section with multiple identical sources. With littlebit of naming I was able to reduce the section length by 70%. Makes the page more readable and won't change anything that matters.

If you want to reference to the same source more than once, name the ref -tags to reduce page length produced by identical references at the bottom. See the source of the Biodiversity -table and/or read more at Wikipedia:Footnotes

Baldwin040 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing grammar

The main article contains the following paragraph:

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

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

A better construction would read:

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

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

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

averting another edit war

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

Of course you "defend" the anon IP because YOU ARE the same person, you are Corticopia. Edit pattern doesn't lie (Star Trek?). Corticopia's forced vacation time suspectfully is the same of yours in the same period. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 03:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the prior figure, per Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (592,017 km2), p. 226. Other commentary is rather pointless, even paranoid. 69.158.58.75 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to ignore AlexCovarrubias's baseless accusations for the time being because this is an inappropriate forum for them and because they do not in any way show good faith or contribute to improving this article, which is all I'm trying to do here. To the anon user: you need to back up that figure with a citation in the text of the article, not just cite it here. Now, even if that source is cited, there's an inconsistency in the article, in that the Physical Geography section defines Central America as including parts of Mexico, and the remainder of the article, including the info box on the right and the table in the Human geography section, have the smaller total area figure, which excludes the Mexican states that could be considered part of CA. Also, the map in the infobox excludes the Mexican states. This makes sense, in a way, because Central America as a political entity is somewhat different from Central America as a geographic entity, but if the article is going to keep that difference, I think it needs to be explained more clearly. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

map needed

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

I agree —Mike 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. A simple political map like [2]

Rearrange, and biodiversity focus

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

What do you mean by "not limited to" if those 7 republics are the only Central American nations. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All those countries have descent to large biodiversity. House1090 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Block evasion?

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

I have no idea what that's about, but I think the "Usage" section sufficiently covers the various alternate definitions of CA, including the UN's version. The lead should only cover the most salient and relevant definition, which excludes Mexico. Feeeshboy (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Feeeshboy. There's no need to add that. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend toward "inclusiveness" on questions like this, but I can see how it could mislead readers if not done carefully. I really just want to find some way of quickly summarizing how this section applies to Mexico. Would you be ok with saying, "Mexico is usually excluded, but this can vary"? K. the Surveyor (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Mexico is not part of Central America, this has been long discussed. The "UN scheme" you talk about was created merely to conduct statistical research and it states that "in no way it implies a political or other type of association". Saying that the UN says Mexico is a CA country then is biased and a very wrong misleading expression. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state this? Please point out the location. Furthermore I am not convinced that statistics are so irrelevant. It would be easier to dismiss if you could point to a UN source that stated that Mexico was part of North America. That would indeed relegate the geoscheme to being a marginal technical construct. But if for the purposes of the whole UN, Mexico is in central America, that is obviously important.
And if all this has been discussed time and time again, then why have the sources clearing up the matter not been added to the page? It is most peculiar. Finally, there are certainly from a geophysical standpoint parts of Mexico in CA, as this page already says. If nothing else, the lede should say, "Small parts of Mexico are geophysically considered part of Central America, but not politically." This is not too much space to devote! K. the Surveyor (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no needed. Already in the article. Just some authors (who?) consider physiographically a part of Mexico being in Central America, which is already indicated in the article in the appropiate section. It is not included in the lead because it would be undue weight.
The UN geoscheme, more precisely the Statistical Division of the UN (Not the UN per se) clearly indicates the following[3]:
The geographical regions and groupings of countries and areas included at this site are not comprehensive but only a selection which are or may be used in the compilation of statistics.
The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
Some persons (I mean a person) that are itchy about the fact that Mexico is part of North America use this "argument" to try to include the whole of Mexico or try to associate Mexico with Central America, which is just not unnatural to Mexicans but also to Central Americans. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't agree with you in this =/ let me tell you why. Of all the possible topics on which Mexico could be considered in Central America, just one stands upfront: physiographically (and that is by some authors, meaning that's not even universally agreed). So not politically, not geopolitically, not culturally, not geographically (as the vast majority of sources describing CA do not include Mexico) not even historically (CA broke apart from Northern America, the America Septentrional meaning Mexico). So saying that in the lead is not appropitate, it is misleading and it is clearly giving too much weight (I mean it is the lead! :P) to a concept that limits itself to physiography. If I have a strong point is only because the point itself is strong, I consider. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two persons around here who are way too obsessive about how to describe Mexicos relation to the continent. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, but if you're taking about me at least you could say it directly. I'm not obssesive, I'm just trying to avoid an obsessive person from imposing his POV. The obssesive one is the other party that, used sockpuppetry, anonymous IPs and other tricks... for about 5 years also! At least give me the credit of being around here for 5 years, using my real name and not hidding from scrutinity. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are pushing a political POV just as much as Corticopia is - it just happens to be the opposite one.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, you guys will have to work this out amongst yourselves. Unfortunately I don't have time for extended discussions like this. My recommendation is to at least have the lead reflect what the article already says on southernmost Mexico. I think this can be done quite easily with a small addition. But I can't stick around any more. Best wishes! K. the Surveyor (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor-quality edition

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

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

He keeps reverting. Seems he doesn't get it. This is his intented addition [4]. Can somebody please explain all this to him? AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 174.30.169.45, 25 August 2011

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

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to do it KarniFro( Talk to me) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

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

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

Costa Rica with more biodiversity? Makes no sense.

How can Costa RIca have more biodiveristy than NIcaragua? Nicaragua has the largest Nature Reserve in central america? Nicaragua owns THe San Juan River. prefix:Talk:Central America/ 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.36.74 (talk)


Deal with it. Costa Rica do have more biodiversity than Nicaragua, Nicaragua may have more territory, but Costa Rica has more PROTECTED territory, that's the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.119.224 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sinebot. The source cited is a presentation! Stating the discovered and known percentage of biodiversity is something, but making a statement as such and comparing it with the rest is not only scientifically wrong and misleading, but pretentious. Costa Rica is known for their approach to environment and the many studies of their biodiversity. Studies as complete as those lack in other Central American countries due to poor government administration and to a less aggressive tourism market. Or has all the research in all Central American finished and documented? - Cristi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.19.146.36 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NYT resource

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

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

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

Many people believe Central America is not part of North America

If you see the Spanish Wikipedia article on Central America and North America you will see that they are understood as separate entities. People in Central America do not believe to be part of North America. This is the way it is taught in schools and common knowledge. Anyone reading this article from Guatemala to Panama would clearly know that it is incorrect or at least is ignoring a source of confusion and difference in understanding of the concept in various regions. I have seen people in the USA refer to countries in Central America as part of South America mainly because they are unaware of the existence of Central America but they would also agree that it is not part of North America. Finally the North American Free Trade Agreement includes only Canada, USA and Mexico. There is a separate Central America Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Acuna007 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a country is not in NAFTA therefore isn't in North America is nonsensical. Is Switzerland part of Europe? Just because it's part of EFTA and not the EU doesn't change which continant it's onDja1979 (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Spanish Language Within the Article?

The first image in the "Geography" section is "Centroamerica politico.png", which shows the countries and their capitals. It's a fine image but appears to be the only one on the page referring to Belize by its Spanish spelling, "Belice", and, for the same reason, using "Ciudad" rather than "city" for the two capitals using that word. I don't know whether there's an SOP for when it's appropriate to use different languages in an article. There may also be value in noting, as nothing else on the page does, that Belice is Belize and vice versa. Nor can I imagine anyone being particularly confused. But, since I noticed it, I mention it in case anyone else should have strong feelings about how or whether to address the matter. ETA: Indeed, I find that even the en.wikipedia page on Belize doesn't mention that it's spelled Belice in Spanish. (The English article on the Sicilian river Belice does mention this fact.) Czrisher (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central America composition

  1. Central American Bank of Integration Economic (BCIE) includes only Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica [5]. Panamá and Dominican Rep. are nonefounding regional partners and Belize is beneficiary, but not included.
  2. In the wikipedia page of the Central American Parliament Belize is not included
  3. Sica does include Belize and Dominican Republic as forming part of Central America for integration ([6])
  4. SIECA, the Secretariat of Economic Integration includes only Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua as the countries of Central America [7].

In Central America, many people consider it to be a separate continent, not in North America but also not South America. Belize is often not considered to be a part of Central America and is more grouped with the Caribbean, especially being in CARICOM. Panama often is not included as a part of Central America because of its closer history to South America and especially Colombia. Taxicats (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article not mention the United Nations designation of Mexico as part of Central America?

The United Nations on this website: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm, designate Mexico as belonging to Central America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5200:3B3:E43A:CFB1:9386:208B (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I followed that ref, and found no mention of Central America there. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central America vs. Mesoamerica vs. Middle America (region) vs. Mesoamerican region

Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: What's that mean?Amanda Smalls 19:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of those things seem to be similar, but different. The should definitly be included in the article, possibly in the "Usage" section, or a "Definition" section for clarity and context. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we merge them?Amanda Smalls 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also Americas (terminology). Not sure if we can merge them. Middle America is more comprehensive, Mesoamerica is a historical definition and Mesoamerican region is the OECD definition of an economic region (at least the latter should be included in the article, maybe even merged).--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really feel like those are all different things. The question we should always ask ourselves when considering a merge is, "are these things independently notable from one another?". Central America seems like it refers more to a specific group of states, where as Mesoamerica is more of a historical cultural grouping. Middle America is an area larger than Central America, and the Mesoamerican region refers to an economic entity. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a gut feeling, or is that really how the sources split up the definitions of these terms? I havent done enoguh research to know the answer, but here's the googlebooks searches for the terms to help you out. :) Mesoamerica central America, Middle America, mesoamerican region.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the bottom of page 37 in this text here. It refers to Middle America, Central America, and Mesoamerica within the one paragraph so should give up some clues to how those 3 articles should be structured. I just figured we should have this discussion now to avoid any duplication or neglected areas.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I am collecting a list of sources I have come accross for various subsections. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups

I fixed the data for Belize in the Ethnic groups table, but much of the rest of the data is completely wrong. MoreTomorrow (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Is Mexico part of Central America? In the article it states that in Britain and in UN it is include, but it also says it is bordered by Mexico. In other parts of the article Mexico is included in events others not. In most of the maps it is not included. Dja1979 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Central America. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico?

Mexico should be on this, it makes up most of it 03:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Thomasp3864 (talk) Thomasp3864 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Thomasp3864 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Central America. 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:

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) 23:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico not included?

I know it's a matter of debate whether Mexico should or shouldnt be in Central America. But the UN Geoscheme *does* list Mexico as being in Central America. What would be the sources opposing Mexico's inclusion? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO the UN should use another name for this subregion, e.g. Middle America, instead of Central America. As for this article, I support the idea to include both Mexico and Clipperton Island, but there should be a note attached stating "sometimes included", so readers know they are the outliers of this subregion.
Continental subregions have always been determined by geopolitical, economic, and/or cultural reasons. There are simply no universally accepted definitions in classifying which countries belong to which subregion. People wasting time fighting over these definitions are just stupid.
Due to a lack of significant geographic barrier, some countries will fall into the "transregional country" catergory. For example, countries like Afghanistan and Iran can be considered either Western, Central, or South Asia. There are no right or wrong answers. The best practice is to include them in all three subregions with a note "often/sometimes/occasionally included" attached, indicating how likely this country would be included in this subregion. For example, Afghanistan is often included as a part of Central Asia, sometimes included as a part of South Asia, and occasionally included as a part of Western Asia. Iran is often included as a part of Central Asia, sometimes included as a part of Western Asia, and occasionally included as a part of South Asia. 120.16.228.195 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_America&oldid=985383620"