Talk:Central America/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, I would be surprised if there are many readers that arrive at this page when they are searching for the ship. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please bring your point here Morse instead of reverting, SqueakBox 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. I shall make the changes. Unschool 01:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)