Talk:North America/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"According to some authorities, North America begins not at the Isthmus of Panama but at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, with the intervening region called Central America (or Middle America if the Caribbean is included) and resting on the Caribbean Plate."

These authorities are not named and the whole statement is misleading, it should be corrected and taken out.

User:TakuyaMurata wrote when readding image I (Infrogmation) deleted:

"They are not identical. Sorry but I think your cache misled you because I changed the filename of new image file."

I checked this with two seperate browsers. It is the same image, taken from the CIA World Fact Book, twice, under two different image names. Perhaps your cache has done the misleading? Could some other folks take a look at this please? -- Infrogmation 21:33 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

They look the same to me. -- Someone else 21:35 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

The bottom one has an older version that's different. - Hephaestos 21:36 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the history of the lower one has (at http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/1/11/20030421174440!North_america.jpg ) what looks to be a 16th or 17th century map of minimal use, but the current version showing on the page is as far as I can see identical with the first map. Infrogmation

The two current images are byte-for-byte identical, so there's no question, they're very much the same picture. -- John Owens 21:52 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that the new map had a name of "North_america.jpg" while the old one got "north_america.jpg". The filename in wikipedia is case-sensitive they can co-exist unluckly but unfortunately some operating systems treat filename in case-insentitive notoriosly windows. This is why things screwed I guess. Anyway I gave a different name to both of maps so nothing should be a problem now. -- Taku 21:56 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

• • Aha! I'm glad we got that cleared up! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:08 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think you mean Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Navassa was Spanish and then US since 1865 this is reflected in the link.

I was about to make the same complaint. But since I found the above unanswered, I went ahead and changed (overseas department of France, part of Réunion) to U.S. territory. Several references including Wikipedia's Navassa Island agree. Maybe he meant Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and maybe he is referring to the Haitian claim to Navassa, based on French ownership of both Haiti and Navassa before the Haitian revolution. Either way, the de facto owner of Navassa Island is the U.S., and I found no evidence France even claims Navassa any more. Reunion left me wondering too. Did the French really associate Navassa with an island on the other side of the world? Art LaPella 01:14, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Is Greenland really the biggest island in the world? Up yours! jengod 22:58, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Australia is officially a continent. Radagast
  • What makes something a continent? I don't understand why Australia is considered a continent, but Greenland isn't, vice versa. In other words, what makes something a continent?
    • I started articles about such continents as
      Euramerica
      , et cetera. I can answer the question:
    • From a geological point of view, a continent is a more or less isolated thing consisting on one or more granitic cratons. By this definition, Greenland, madagascar, and many other landmasses, but not Hawaii Iceland and many others are continents.
    • Geographers did not want to have to memorize the names of dozens of continents, so after the discovery of Australia, the geographers decried that no continent is smaller than Australia.
    • Basically, Greenland is not a continent because the geographers say so. It is totally arbitrary.
    • Ŭalabio 03:25, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

• • • • It's definitely arbitrary, but Australia is large enough to be viewed as a "peer" to Asia, Africa, North America, etc. Greenland is not quite big enough.

Is there any reason the countries in the table are sorted by population density? Of the four items on the list (alpha, density, size, pop) it seems the oddest... Radagast

Also, as it happens, Greenland is "right next to" North America, and prior to the Danish claim, culturally exclusively an extension of the realm of the Inuit. Tomer ^TALK 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here hoping to find some discussion of extinct species of North America (I've definitely heard of wooly mammoths; I just saw mention of camels and lions, and was looking for "confirmation"). I don't see any blindingly obvious links from here to flora/fauna discussion though. I'm not offering to make any, so this is only a suggestion in case someone motivated to do so reads this. :) Tomak 04:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I always group Mexico as part of Central America. Doesn't this make more sense? The culture is much more alike than it is to USA or Canada's people. Is there any good reason it's usually grouped in North America, not Central America?

Mexico is on the same techtonic plate, this is why. Russia is partially in asia yet has a quite different culture. Maybe it has been in the past that the techtonic plates have created physical boundaries and thus lead to similar cultures on the same techtonic plates. Colonisation is why this is not quite so in this instance. Central america is on its own techtonic plate, for if it were not, and were on that of North America, I imagine it would likely be considered more a part of North America. I am fairly sure, but I could be mistaken.Cerceole|(talk)

Because you are mixing up Geography and culture... Mexico is geographically in North America, although culturally it is a part of Latin America (not Central or South America, those are geographical terms). Austrialia is part of the European culture but you wouldn't geographically include it in Europe.. Would you?

MEXICO IS NOT CENTRAL AMERICA IN ANY SENSE, IT IS LATIN AMERICA, IT IS NORTH AMERICA. THE FLAG SHOULD GO WITH IN NORTH AMERICA, OTHERWISE IF IT WAS BASED ON CULTURAL PROXIMITY IT WOULD BE IN LATIN AMERICA BUT NOT IN CENTRAL AMERICA, AGAIN LATIN AMERICA IS A CULTURAL REGION. NORTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA ARE GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS NOT CULTURAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.122.146 (talk • contribs)

The current table divisions, "Caribbean", "Central America", and "Northern America" aren't very good. With this scheme we are forced to put Mexico either in "Northern America" -- an obscure term that should be used as little as possible -- or in "Central America", which it generally isn't considered a part of. It would be better not to divide the table at all, or perhaps to have divisions labeled "Caribbean" and "Mainland". --Yath 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The UN scheme (

neutral and often-used arrangement in favour of schemes and terms that serve little purpose. E Pluribus Anthony | talk

| 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I only wanted to respond to your statement, not to push for the use of "mainland". Having everything together in a single alphabetized list would be best. At any rate, using "northern america" is the worst of the three choices so far discussed. --Yath 04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We agree to disagree. How is the UN scheme not neutral (and you haven't answered this adequately)? I can't qualify your opinion of whether it is commonly used (which I disagree with), but prevalence/usage does not connote impartiality. It is a systematic attempt to better organise content. To that end, Wp isn't guiding usage:

citations

have already been made (with prior discussion) and there are adequate wikilinks to germane articles that detail and already reflect differences in usage.

And while I'm not resistant to merely alphabetising the list, I see little reason to sift through a flotsam of entries in favour of the current scheme. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong to call "Northern America" biased. It is a just an unfortunate term due to its limited use, and the fact that it is just as likely to be used as a synonym for "North America" as for a specific region (e.g., the US and Canada). I suspect many readers who see it here for the first time may wonder why it is presented in a context that differentiates it from "North America", and then wonder whether it includes Mexico. It will do more to confuse than to inform. --Yath 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Unfortunately, usage and definitions vary. The two terms can be confused (and note Northern America includes more than just the US and Canada), but there are other examples of regions with similar directions in their names; they often coincide but sometimes do not – e.g., South Africa/Southern Africa. I created Americas (terminology) (and it was reviewed by others beforehand) to clarify matters. The content t/herein cites definitions (compiled from various soruces) and wikilinks provide more information. And, again, the scheme in place is an effort to reconcile and better organise content – much of which remains unsourced and subjective – regarding geographical entities in Wp. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN classification is wrong and the fact that that classification might seem convenient doesn”t make it right, accuracy and consensus is what matters for an ecyclopedia:

From Encarta: North America, third largest of the seven continents, including Canada (the 2nd largest country in area in the world), the United States (3rd largest), and Mexico (14th largest). The continent also includes Greenland, the largest island, as well as the small French overseas department of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and the British dependency of Bermuda (both made up of small islands in the Atlantic Ocean).

From Bartebly: México or Méjico (both: m ´h k ) (KEY) , officially United Mexican States, republic (1995 est. pop. 93,986,000), 753,665 sq mi (1,952,500 sq km), S North America.

From Britanica: 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.

You conveniently omitted (which directly follows above text): "Some geographers also include five states of Mexico: Quintana Roo, Yucatan, Campeche, Tabasco, and Chiapas" (Britannica Ready Reference) Otherwise, I defer to prior statements/citations. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I deliberately excluded that part because the fact that some (not most) geographers include five states (out of 31 states in Mexico) doesn’t make the country part of Central America.

From http://www.countryreports.org/map/NorthAmerica.aspx North America: Bermuda Canada Mexico Saint Pierre and Miquelon United States of America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.122.146 (talk • contribs)

The

UN scheme is as 'wrong' as the ones above are – they're not. And these various definitions, all of which vary, are linked herein and covered in Americas (terminology), et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk

| 05:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.122.146 (talk • contribs)

From the University of Michingan: North America = Canada, Mexico and US http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/frames/fornafr.html

I'm unsure what this bluster is meant to accomplish. If anything, your citations demonstrate that defs for North America differ. Again, this is treated and reconciled in this article, Americas (terminology), and others. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes definitions for NA differ, at the same time they don"t, non includes Mexico as Central America, all Include it as North America!!!! Even in the terminology section it explains "as defined in the UN" No source except for the UN includes Mexico as Central America, therefore the UN is the exception to the general consensus not the rule, you might see that all the definitions differ a little, however non includes Mexico in Central America and that is the point. Again the flag of Mexico should go in the North America section, not in Central America.

This isn't a geographic version of musical chairs. If you took the time to actually read the article and notes (and commentary above), you'd realise there's a distinction between the

point-of-view that's already addressed, and nothing stated herein changes that nor justifies why Mexico should be moved as you suggest. E Pluribus Anthony | talk

| 12:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the table: take it up with the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), then. :) Read above: while the various terms have various meanings,

table sourcing/grouping is clearly indicated. Moreover, none of this nor article content, particularly the sxn regarding usage, denies that Mexico is a part of North Americaand sufficiently elaborates. E Pluribus Anthony | talk

| 13:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Navassa Island is also part of the West Indies and therefore of North America Bish 17:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hawaii is not part of North America, and should be excluded from that list (United States includes Hawaii, however it is not part of North America) would be an appropriate note. Hawaii lies in the middle of the Pacific far from any continent, lying on an oceanic plate, built from basalts from a midplate hotspot... 132.205.15.4 04:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I concur, and furthermore should be, as the Us is noted in other articles as existing in multiple continents (North America and Oceania), Oceeania, that is, as much as Hawaii is concerned. At the least, I don't think we should have discrepancies between articles. Cerceole|(talk) 12:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The US pop is radically different from the one that you get when you click on america. Is this because of Hawaii?

The US pop is radically different from the one that you get when you click on USA alone. Is this because of Hawaii? Just wondering

Panama is not listed as only North American state. Why? Where is the border between North and South America?

I think that it should have some South American territory too (so, there should be a note mentioning that) - if not, then Columbia should have some North American territory - becouse it is highly unlikely that former colony or current state borders are drawed EXATLTY on purely geographical continent borders.

Again, this is arbitrary, but convention dictates that Panama is North American and that Columbia is South American. (Convention isn't necessarily "right"--many biologists feel that the Ural mountains are not enough of a barrier to separate Europe from Asia, but convention holds that it is.)