Talk:Northern America/Archive 1

message: This terminology (Northern America) seems to have a  common usage with different meanings such as . I think that it is a confusing article name.  hydnjo talk 03:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed there is a conflict here. The U.S. Census defines it as what the article says, therefore I wrote that theory. This article ought to be split between definitions. --Lan56 03:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
I get really amazed by the confusion certain people create when it comes to America.
It's not difficult: America is a continent (New World) and can be divided in three physical regions: North America (including Mexico!), Central America (including the Caribbean), and South America. However it can also be divided in two cultural regions: Anglo-Saxon America (roughly speaking Canada, USA and the Caribbean) and Latin America (Mexico, insular Central America and South America). Of course, terminolgies may be created, like asian tigers or the BRICs, but Norhtern America as described in this article is an invention that nobody else seems to use (also because it's unnecessary); I also never heard of Middle America, like I never heard of Middle Europe (but surely someone can invent it and start to spread). But in essence, America is one. Just like Europe is one, Asia is one, Africa is one. America is not a country. It happens that the USA have the term America in its name, but ambiguity should be avoided by not using the word America in reference to the country, or Americans in reference to people form the USA (the most correct is US citzen). It is also not acurate to say that Mexicans are not north americans. US citzens are Americans; likewise, Colombians and Brazilians are also Americans (Germans are European, etc).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.91 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: Hello!  Since the term Northern America has clear usage distinct from North America, e.g., by the UN when classifying regions, I recently changed this redirect into an article (again).  Feel free to enhance it or to build in more regarding possible ambiguity of the term.  E Pluribus Anthony 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  You are using -"ern" on a map to substantiate a difference? --Categorizer 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally disagree.  As clearly indicated and linked in the article – per the UN geoscheme – Northern America is a subregion of North America.  Various atlases and compendiums do so as well, particularly when categorising entities for statistical purposes (e.g., partially utilised in Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year).  Would you propose to merge Central America into North America, or either into Americas?  Dubious logic.  This is no different than distinctions between South Africa (republic) and Southern Africa (sub/region).  It is ironic that you insinuate a UN 'POV' when it arguably doesn't get more impartial than that.  Distinct concepts require distinct articles: I see little reason to forego or usurp concepts/notions which anyone can verify with non-descript ones.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry that was a typo.. What I mean't was a redirect to The Canadian Americas. Intuitionz 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed redirect into article

message: inventing your own continents are you now?--205.188.116.200 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above – any attempts to redirect will be reversed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  going to redirect this to [[North America]] 

message: Someone put Mexico in Northern America. Perhaps there is confusion between the Continent ("North" America) and the Subregion ("Northern" America). --Wing Nut 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Mexico

message: This article clearly refers to Anglosaxon America, the term Northern America is hardly differento from North America. Furthermore, the distinction between Northern, and North America is clearly socioeconomic. Northern-Aglosaxon America would be the clear oposite to Southern-Latin America. Perhaps both this article and that of Latin America should be changed to those names. (201.114.105.99 16:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect -- the various terms connote socioeconomic and geographic distinctions.  For instance, what of Greenland?  Also, there is a difference between Northern America (compared to Middle America/South America) and Anglo-America (as opposed to Latin America), the latter of which is what I think you're getting at.  Cogito ergo sumo 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglosaxon America