Talk:Central America

message: Mexico should be on this, it makes up most of it
03:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per nom. We can include Mexico because some sources include it, but it should be represented by the light green colour with a note stating that its inclusion is not universally agreed. Vic Park (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  An  has been made following your request. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted my edits as Mexico should not be included. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Vic Park (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Thank you for reverting. Mexico as a part of Central America is an Anglo conception for simplification. Both Mexican and Central American societies exclude Mexico from the definition. Some of the bordering Mexican states (particularly Chiapas) can be considered Central American for historical and cultural reasons. Geographically speaking, it would make sense to include the Yucatan peninsula as well. The concept of Central America as a region dates back to the Captaincy General of Guatemala, which excluded Mexico apart from Chiapas. I think it would make sense to define Central America as separate from Mexico, but nonetheless note that it is included in a minority of definitions, such as the UN geoscheme.Last edited by: (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Support France also classify Mexico as a part of Central America: https://studentsoftheworld.info/menu_infopays.html 2001:8003:900C:5301:80DE:9FBE:80BE:AD01 (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, your source appears to be a random non-profit. I'm not sure why that has any relevance here. There is a plethora of varied schemes for dividing the world into regions, and this is not particularly more objective than any others.Last edited by: (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico? 

message: Throughout this article, there appear to be numerous unsourced, poorly sourced, outdated and misrepresented demographic statistics.  There are multiple glaring examples of this under the "Religious groups" section.
Firstly, said section claims that 95.6 percent of the Central American population is Christian.  However, this statistic is based on a 2013 estimate of what the Central American Christian population would be in 2020 published by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.  This should either be changed to specify that this was merely an estimate or, ideally, replaced with a recent non-estimated figure published by a reliable source.
Following that is a demographic chart breaking down the percentage of Christian and non-Christian religious populations in Central America.  This chart is not included in the article's formal list of citations and instead makes an inline citation of "Source: Jason Mandrik [sic], Operation World Statistics (2020)."  This appears to be a reference to the Operation World evangelical reference book and prayer guide, which was most recently credited to author Jason Mandryk and has not been revised since 2010.  Thus, even if Operation World were considered a reliable statistical source (which is debatable), there is no way whomever initially placed these statistics within the article could have been citing its 2020 edition (which does not exist).
Following the demographic chart are two clarifying bullet points, which, in addition to having numerous grammatical and syntax errors, claim that adherents of the Church of Scientology were counted among the chart's "Other Christian" category.  This seriously calls into question the reliability of whatever source these statistics were based on, as the Church of Scientology does not purport to be a branch of Christianity and has no elements of Christianity or any other Abrahamic faith in it.  While it is possible the source, if it even exists, was counting Scientologists who still nominally consider themselves Christian in the "Other Christian" category, this is not specified and (as the source was not properly cited) not verifiable.
While, based on Wikipedia's guidelines for removing questionable or unreliable sources, I am not deleting any of the demographic data contained in this article wholesale, I strongly recommend a full review of all of its demographic statistics and charts and that any unsourced, poorly sourced, outdated or misrepresented data be removed and/or replaced. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sourcing and statistics 

message: Was Central America ever a serious traderoute before the Panama Canal was built? --95.24.74.137 (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade route