Talk:North America/Archive 3

message: The primary To Do List objective for this page is to clarify references to Mexico. The main dispute seems to concern the Usage section. There are a number of Canadian editors who insist that the region of North America is "often" used to mean just the USA + Canada. I tried to edit this line to reflect that this usage is prevalent mainly in Canada and not in the USA, but this was not acceptable to them. One of them provided a link to a page that says that uses the term "sometimes" NA = US+CAN. The link that the guy in Toronto suggested was http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzamericas.htm  So until further clarification of the difference between usage in Canadian/British vs. American English can be achieved, is it acceptable to modify "often" to "sometimes" as a interim compromise? That's what I plan to do if no objections are made.Walterego (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you may not do that without a consensus, which you seem not to have garnered.  While the 'about' link is a reference of note, Fowler's or the Oxford Companion are far more reputable (IMHO).  I trust that a specific quotation was provided (in the notes) to deal with this head-on: the quote from Fowler's actually indicates (text bolded) "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together", so "often" seems a better balance between "mostly" and "sometimes".  While they are both published by British institutions, there appear to be no specific qualifications about which varieties of English these reckonings about usage are prevalent in (e.g., Canadian/British English), both of which you've tried to ascribe unsuccessfully.  To do so is to make, perhaps, unreasonable inferences which you have yet to persuade for either through sourcing or argument.  You appear to have provided few - if any - reputable sources to support your argument, yet you expect us to chuck or re-factor a number of reliable sources which essentially say the same thing and which you disagree with?  69.158.149.81 (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also not leave the article in it's current form without a consensus, which you seem not to have garnered. The article in its current form is inaccurate. Fowler's & Oxford are reliable sources of British English. I have no problem keeping the section as is if "British" is added to modify the sentence beginning with "In English". You are attempting to persuade that the usage is correct for all forms of English usage, including American English, which is not so. It is true that the very nature of common language usage is difficult to find authoritative sources for, which is why neither of us have found a reliable source to back up our claims. In the US, virtually all sources sidestep the issue of usage by defining North America as referring to the whole continent (CAN+USA+MEX+CEN AMER+CARIB). WilyD got me interested in this debate when on the talk page with another editor, he claimed that the Canadian usage of NA is the prevalent usage in the USA also. Can you find a source from the US which unambiguously says what Fowler's says? You found one link from a domestic (i.e North American) source, and I was willing to use its language in order to drop this trvial issue, and now you're backing away from your own source? If you have a problem with your link's language, why did you provide it? What is the matter with replacing "often" with the relatively more accurate "sometimes"? God forbid I insert a sentence describing how the term is sometimes (more often than not) used in American speech. You wanted a source as evidence of this, here's this from Michigan State University which is as clear as it gets:"North America includes Canada, the United States, Mexico, and their related territories". This is from a page that has nothing to do with NAFTA btw. -   http://www.msuglobalaccess.net/geo/northamerica/ 
http://www.msuglobalaccess.net/geo/ 
For your added clarification and amusement you meight also see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=north+america Walterego (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, a consensus has already affirmed the content: it has remained as is for quite some time, and you alone currently contest it, or a minority has in the past.  Nor have you convinced me or others.  Your reference simply reiterates what is elsewhere in the current article about what comprises North America - it does not speak to the point you are trying to make, i.e., that such-and-such is prevalent in English usage, specifically Canadian or British English usage.  And, in fact, both Fowler's and Oxford dictionaries treat common usage of words in American and British English - Fowler's indicates (on cover): "It gives in-depth coverage of both British and American English with reference to the English of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa."  Need I say more?  You simply haven't yet convinced me or others.  69.158.144.210 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the history of this article's edits show a pattern of multiple people trying to fix the usage section but one editor in particular, WilyD, reverting it back to the usage that he is accustomed to. I notice that both you and he are located in the Toronto area, so I'm inclined to believe that you are either WilyD yourself or a friend of his. Otherwise there is a huge coincidence happening of Torontians who care intensely about asserting that americans speak the same way that canadians do. Either way you don't seem to understand the meaning of consensus - simply because an article has been kept in a particular way for a long time due on an editor's ownership problem does not constitute the agreement of multiple editors, it means that nobody else has the patience to keep negating his obsessive edits. Probably I'll eventually get tired of trying to find a solution and give up, and in the future others will see the page and attempt to fix it also and go through the same frustration. That is not genuine consensus. Secondly my point is not that  such-and-such is prevalent in Canadian or British English usage. Fowler's already makes that point for me. I am saying that usage does not extend to the USA. I provided a reference from MSU because it demonstrates how the phrase North America is commonly used by Americans, (namely to describe the 3 countries of CAN, US, & MEX). A second reference is this: http://www.spp.gov/  You have yet to provide a source that shows or states otherwise, apart from Fowler's, which is not a reliable source of American English. Otherwise there would have been no need for Margaret Nicholson to write a Dictionary of American-English Usage as a reaction to Fowler's. (Nicholson, Margaret (1957). A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage) Walterego (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite your many words, you have simply not provided a single source to support your assertion, and have not been convincing.  Three sources have been provided which directly deal with the topic of how the term is USED in English, whatever stripe.  (This may be different than how the term is DEFINED, which is dealt with in abundance earlier in the article.)  As for consensus: there are notes in the code of the article to discuss changes on the talk page and await a consensus before making them - you didn't and persist in drawing out something and trying to 'fix' sourced, accurate information which has already been dealt with, so you apparently have some point to prove ... one which I will not continue to indulge until you convince otherwise.  Someone else might.  Goodbye.  69.158.144.210 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WilyD, I take your comment of "goodbye" to mean that you are ceasing discussion and uninterested in reaching a consensus of how the language of the usage section should be worded. You haven't provided accurate information, and your sources are not relevant to how prevalent the term is in American English. I provided two sources which support my assertion, just as many as you have. So the only remaining option in order to find a compromise is to use the language of the link you yourself provided, the one that described North American as a term that is "sometimes", rather than "often" (as you have failed to provide even one single source to support), used in the manner you prefer of meaning just the US & Canada. This would seem to be the only remaining course, if you don't wish to suggest revised wordings of the text yourself. You just keep insisting that the text of the section be left just as you want it, for no reason other than one editor, you, insists that your POV is the only valid one, that for anyone to presume to change the article they must first convince WilyD and have his permission. This contradicts the whole point of wikipedia, which is that it is the COLLABORATIVE encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yours is a textbook case of WP:OWN here, as I have not been the first to notice. Really, saying goodbye and letting obsessive "control" of this article pass to other editors would be the healthiest thing you could do, your blood pressure will drop and you'll live longer. So I put it to any other editors who may have an opinion on the matter, should the "usage" section be dropped, as WilyD had agreed was possible ("The usage stuff could probably go - it's such a tiny, tiny issue, but that'd mean both the CAN + US & CAN+US+MEX"), or should the section be left as is but with the slight modification of using the word "sometimes" in place of "often", from the link WilyD provided, with that link as the source, since he acknowledges that it is a reliable source.Walterego (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, no and no.  And, I'm not WilyD.  69.158.144.210 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want buddy to stop making specious sockpuppeting accusations, please consider registering an account.  See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more details on why this is a good idea, but if Walter convinced a checkuser that there was a legitimate sockpuppeting accusation, they'd see right fast that you're using Bell and I use mostly a fixed IP and sometimes Rogers.  Sorry to have gotten you hassled like that, I'm distracted with something else at the moment. WilyD 13:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Walterego, you just want random examples of Americans using North America in the "cultural region" sense rather than the geographic sense? Jeez, okay:          American Federal Government North America = US+CAN - very shapely      America Environmental Impacts2.htm  I could go on, but hopefully the point is made. Saved, the Dutch and British examples   WilyD 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you have failed to make your point, because those examples are not of Americans using North America in the cultural context as you claim. Instead, you have again provided sources from Canada and other places outside the USA such as Israel, the Netherlands, the UK etc. If you are going to provide so many points I wish you would examine them more carefully so as to not waste our time. Of the list of 14 links, numbered 2-15, only 2 and 9 support your point somewhat. 4 contradicts it directly, as it includes Mexico. 3 & 7 omit northern Canada, in fact 3 depicts North America as being the USA essentially. 7 would lead one to believe that the Yukon, Nunavut, & NWT are no more a part of North America than Iceland. 5 is Israeli, not American. 6 is just a joke map (in which Mexico is left out to serve the punchline about Canada & blue states being politically suited). 8 is British. 10 is Canadian. 11 is Canadian/Acadian. 13 is Dutch. 15 is German. 12 & 14 refer to corporations that have branches in the US/Can but apparently not in Mexico, so all those illustrations demonstrate is that they haven't opened HQs/branches there (same for 11, the Acadian family, being french-canadian in origin, would of course not have family in Mexico). 9 would seem to provide the best support for your point since, it is from a US agency in Tennesse, but it limits its usage with the wording "as defined here" presumably because it lacked data for Mexico. Within that very same website is the opposite usage of North America being US+CAN+ME Thanks for helping me make my point by finding yet another official organization that defines North America as the US+CAN+MEX, the group NARSTO  Walterego (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Misrepresenting sources is not a very compelling argument.  The sources I presented aren't great - they're just as bad as the one you used to promote your novel conclusions - it seemed like the appropriate point.  3 is transparently "North America = Canada + US" - that it cuts off some uninhabited bits (and yes, I know Alert actually has ~50 people) doesn't say anything about the cultural region.  4 is also North America = Canada+American with no uncertainty.  That's why they're labelled and other countries completely included (Mexico, Cuba) aren't.  5 is also exactly right = it's a joke about the culture of North America, and includes only Canada + America, because they're the only members of the cultural region.  6 neglects the territories because ... nobody lives there.  But it still equates Canada + AMerica = North America.  The list goes on and on.  Merely making false statements about facts is transparent when they're there for everyone to see.  (although I did not pay much attention to the nationality - and not surprisingly, North America = Canada+America is a common usage found in Canada, America, the UK, Germany, Holland, Israel et al. WilyD 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that misrepresenting sources, as you have, is not a very compelling argument. You said these were from American sources and then on closer inspection this turns out to be false. Try considering, maybe you're wrong about how a phrase is used in a country that you don't even live in? Particaularly since you're arguing with a person who's lived his whole life there? Notice I'm not trying to tell you how Canadians talk, even though I have many relatives there and have visited often. Watching "The OC" on CTV doesn't make you an expert on Orange County. Links 3&6- So the cultural region of North America only refers to the USA and the southern portion of Canada? Huh? Link 4 - North America=USA+CAN+MEX with no uncertainty, look again and you will see that Mexico is indeed labeled, unlike Cuba/Carrib. That's there for everyone to see.  Link 5 is a joke. I'm not disputing North America = Canada+America is a common usage in countries outside of America like Canada, Europe, Israel, etc (as I've said several times already). But that is not a common usage in the USA, or at least far less common than NA=MEX+CAN+USA. None of your links come close to being as clear as mine from MSU :"North America includes Canada, the United States, Mexico, and their related territories, lying north of Central and South America in the western hemisphere." Or the previously included MSN Encarta page "North America, third largest of the seven continents, including Canada, the United States, and Mexico." Walterego (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Lewis and Wigen discuss the usage of North America in passing in their book The Myth of Continents (.)  They write (p. 38, discussing a map): "Heavy lines mark the official continental boundaries of U.S. geography, while lighter lines denote the areas commonly associated with these labels in the popular imagination...North America is conceptually truncated far north of the Panama Isthmus (either at Mexico's northern or southern boundary)—excising large areas that are officially within the continent's boundaries."   Also, they list the North America which is truncated at the USA-Mexico border as one of a number of "Standard World Regions" (p. 168.) Spacepotato (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice Lewis/Wigen write "EITHER at Mexico's northern or southern boundary". Exactly. In American English, at the southern, in other kinds of English, at the northern. Or suppose they were writing only about American usage, they said "either", so which is more popular? I'm willing to suppose that both are equally popular in the USA, even though I know full well that the most popular in the USA is NA=USA+CAN+MEX. I'd be fine with the wikipedia usage paragraph reading that the region is sometimes USA+CAN+MEX and sometimes only USA+CAN and neither is a "fringe" usage.Walterego (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were describing usage in the USA.  Anyway, the usage paragraph says right now that the region can be either USA+CAN+MEX or USA+CAN. Spacepotato (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link to the Lewis and Wigen book, The Myth of Continents (.) It may be able to settle the usage issue with the best example from a domestic North American source, and finally clarify the issue without complaints of original research. Two pages past your example, on page 40, they write: "In regard to North America one can detect a similar shift between official designation and popular conception. Strictly speaking, the North American continent includes Panama and all points north, but in common parlance Central America is usually excluded, while in some circumstances Mexico is deleted as well."  So here we have an example of a American source stating clearly that "USUALLY" N.A.= US+CAN+MEX, while "some" of the time it is just NA = US+CAN. This is close to what the usage paragraph asserts now, but I'd like to modify the paragraph to reflect the Lewis & Wigen source more closely. In fact I think that sentence could be directly inserted into the usage section, and I plan to do so if there are no objections. Walterego (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's the link to the Lewis/Wigen book: http://books.google.com/books?id=C2as0sWxFBAC&dq=Myth+of+Continents&pg=PP1&ots=sQp7cDs6N2&source=bn&sig=5tduHlZKVE_y0i0LapH-JhyqggE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA40,M1  Walterego (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage debate continued 

message: I really fail to see the need to separate North American countries by region. Especially considering that there is no consensus, even amongst reputable sources, on how to classify Mexico. Moreover, that issue has caused dozens of edit wars before, and the consensus, even if tacit, was to simply list all the countries. Why go back to a classification in which Mexico is said to be Central American? Not only would that amount to WP:POVPUSH (not all sources classify Mexico in Central America, and even though I would be happy to produce a comprehensive list of sources, a quick review at previous discussions and archives suffices), but the editors are begging for another unnecessary edit-war. For the sake of neutrality and to maintain the consensus, I ask the editors of this article (some of which, sad to say, border on WP:OWN), to revert back to the previous version with the list of countries not separated by regions. If you don't think a truly NPOV consensus can be reached, I would be more than happy to request for arbitration; given previous debates, I see no other solution. --the Dúnadan 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only agree with this.  In the absence of agreement on how to subdivide the continent, it's better to simply list the countries in order. Spacepotato (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Mexico is in North America along with Canada and the United States, but since some people seemed to have a problem with that, they decided to leave the article unclassified. Supaman89 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American countries by regions 

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

message: Since the populations cited are from 2005 estimates and thus lower than the current populations I've noticed that some countries have 2005 estimated populations that are higher than estimates from 2007.
So I'm wondering why this is.
~ikonicDeath  —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Geographically, Central America might be a region of North America, but not politically. Central America has always been thought as a separate and independent region of the American Continent. This should be mentioned in this wiki, as almost 100% percent of the Central Americans don't consider themselves as North Americans.
Compare to the Spanish version of this article  MarcoCROH (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The languages of English and Spanish aren't identical.  The English Language phrase "North America" includes Central America in most usages, with an exception where it refers only to America+Canada.  Central America is definitely a part of North America politically, even if its not part of Norteamerica.  WilyD 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: English language not, U.S citizens "think" that, but when they go out of their country, the reality will be on their face.--TownDown How's it going? 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: There's a difference in opinion between English- and Spanish-speaking countries as to whether the Americas are 2 or 1 continent. The majority of Latin America considers both to be one continent called America whilst the majority of English-language sources state that they are 2 separate continents, together called the Americas rather than just America. Many in Latin America also consider North America and Central America to be subcontinents. This article is about the North American continent and its regions and islands.  Central America is definitely a separate region, but not all sources agree on what constitutes Central America. UN includes Mexico and Belize, the EU does not.  The article does explain this in one of the sections.  The Central American region has an entire article dedicated to it, but this article is about the entire continent of North America. Do you have specific suggestions on how to present this or improve the article? Kman543210 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Latin America, Spain, and some other parts of Europe, North America usually designates a subcontinent (subcontinente in Spanish) of the Americas containing Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and often Greenland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Bermuda.--Heraldicos (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement relies upon a Spanish to English translation which is demonstratably false. WilyD 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kman: The "entire continent" of North America? America is the continent, and his subcontinents are North, Central and South America!!!
Well, this is odd. There must be a way this is teached in US. But i just saw the article about Central America. If there's a Central America for you americans, why it's is included on North? Here in Brazil North America is US, Canada, Mexico, Greenland and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. The other you guys cited are Central America. Must if it's a way that you guys are teached it must be discussed with other wikipedians from North Amrica too. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Err, not really.  It's simply an error of translation.  "North America" is a proper name in English, which refers to an area of land streching from Panama to Greenland.  Translations of names from other languages which don't reference the same area aren't the same word.  Translations, is, of course, and imprecise art, so one much deal with such things.  It's the same in America, Britain, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Jamaica, China and everyone else people are speaking some English. WilyD 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central America is not part of North America 

message: This is just silly. All those countries aren't in north America. All that's there are Canada, St Pierre and the US. The rest are odd islands and Mexico is in central America. 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to check your maps mate, especially the one about Central America. Supaman89 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Firstly, the European Union is not in North America. Secondly, the European Union is not a single country/nation, so it's ranking amongst sovereign nations isn't an equal comparison.  IP editor 79.9.189.194, please stop trolling the talk pages about the GDP rankings of the EU and U.S. Kman543210 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what it is 

message: Last page has been archived.--TownDown How's it going? 21:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archiving a talk page]] 

message: Should we include the three territories of North America?
:* Northern North America
:* Central North America
:* Southern North America
Allthough contrary to belief, The United States of America aka America is not located in Central North America as this entity is allready occupied by the City Of Winnipeg. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More divisions? No, we should not. Not relevant. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 12:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central North America 

message: not known of but will be recorded when found.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.193.3 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual History 

message: Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:
* Europe (current)
* Asia (former)
* South America (current)
I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:
* It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
* New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at :File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
* As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.
Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!)  However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)
Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.
This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those maps look good, if you could make them I'll support using them in the articles you mentioned. Supaman89 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Done! Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Nice map! Good job. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps for continents - proposal 

message: North America surely ends at the USA's southern frontier. Below that is central America.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on the definition. Certainly NAFTA use a different definition, one that takes in Mexico. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definition is what we're talking about. Equally absurd is that Nunavut is America.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the primary definition here seems to be "continent", and Central America doesn't fit into that categorisation: there are differing ideas about what the continents are (Americas vs. North America and South America, for example), but Central America isn't one. Regardless, I suppose if you found a few reliable references, the article could note that some sources consider North America to end at the US's southern border. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no source that considers the North American continent to "end" at the southern US border. That "definition" simply does not exist. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: South America#Geography is well  cited, and defines South America's northern border as "generally delimited on the northwest by the Darién watershed along the Colombia-Panama border, or (according to some sources) by the Panama Canal which transects the Isthmus of Panama." Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: No, Mexico isn't in Central America. Central America is not a continent, it is the cluster of countries in between Mexico and Columbia Colombia.Walterego (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough- until you are in any position to make any geological decision, stay away form doing so here.  Panama, yes Panama, as far south on continental North America as it may be, is still part of North America.  As is Honduras, Canada, Mexico, etc.  Central America is a LOCATION not a continent (perhaps a sub-continent?).  And certainly these geographic assertions were made well before any political interference, such as NAFTA.  While NAFTA may not include any nation south of Mexico, Costa Rica could join they wanted to and members allowed it.  I'm a political scientist, leave the politics to us.207.172.166.181 (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope 

message: How can the article here say North America is mostly (not entirely) in the Western hemisphere, but the article for Western Hemisphere shows a map that clearly has all of NA in the Western Hemisphere.  Another example of Wikipedia contradicting itself.  Way to go, 'editor.'207.172.166.181 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with 'rights' want to consider editing this?  It appears valid.Tatumstevens (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The maps on the WH page are known to be faulty. It rightly states in the text of the article that some of the Aleutian Islands do in fact lie in the Eastern Hem. I'm afraid I don't care enough about this technicality to revert it tho...but just so everybody's clear... Rennell435 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a geographer, but I note that the Extreme points of the United States article says that Amatignak Island is the "westernmost point in all of US territory, by longitude" (bad wording that, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa are US territories) the Amatignak Island article lists its coordinates as 51°15′33″N 179°06′31″W﻿ / ﻿51.25917°N 179.10861°W﻿ / 51.25917; -179.10861 (a bit to the east of the 180th meridian. Google maps shows several Aleutian islands lying west of that, but I'm not sure whether or not those islands are US territory. This article should probably clarify this point. Someone who is a geographer and who does care about the encyclopedic info in Wikipedia should probably look at this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it in the Western Hemisphere? 

message: Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla Banks were previously listed as territories of the United States in this template. Whatever U.S. government sources lists them as so is irrelevant until you can establish that the U.S. actually has these banks under its control. The Colombian government lists them as being part of the San Andres Department, so if we're adding random territories where actual control doesn't matter, then a whole list of other territorial claims have to be added aswell.
Unless an editor can find confirmation from an indisputable source, de facto jurisdiction over these banks will remain unconfirmed, and this template should reflect that. If you want this changed--you first need to have your sourced claim accepted on the Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank pages. Rennell435 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed these areas from the North America page. See here for reasons. Rennell435 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla 

message: Caribe is Eastern Central America and not North America..!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.109.155 (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is including Central America in the definition of North America. Zazaban (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Disagree with the section header. Central America is a region inside the continent of North America. Central america is not a continent, nor is it part of the continent of South America. Walterego (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the definition of North America from , previously cited in support of the lead sentence of this article, was a fine, specific, clearly stated definition from an authoritative source. That supporting source was changed to  in this edit. Both of those sources support the assertion that North America comprises what might be described as "Northern Continental America" (the United States and Canada) plus Central America (including Mexico) and the Caribbean. The edit summary for the edit changing from one supporting source to another was, "Right, Fowler's is a ref for usage not a real geographic reliable source. I update ref to Britannica." The previous sourcing had nothing whatever to do with Fowler's, but there was a discussion about Fowler's going on at that time (see this).  Fowler's says that the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. This and other usages are covered in the Usage section of the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, the problem with the UN's usage is that although it reflects the largely Eurocentric view that Mexico is part of Central America, conflating it with Middle America because spanish is the common language, it doesn't reflect the predominant American English view that Central America excludes Mexico, as with http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Central%20America  Walterego (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not characterize that as a "problem"; perhaps a "difference", but not a "problem". See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The UN reference is a statistical point of view, not geographic, nor geopolitical.--Jcmenal (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central America not is North America