Talk:Central America/Archive 1

message: Regarding this comment --
:Central America IS Central America, not the southern part of north america, if that was true what do you call south america?, the southern southen part of Nort America?. America is conformed of 3 main blocks well defined geographically and geologically. When you are thinking of central america as part of north america you are thinking of soccer world team divisions. Books distributed in the us shouldn't be the only source of information for the rest of the world, else we would be 1984ing wikipedia, "He who controls the present, controls the past".
-- I will be as polite as possible.  The person who wrote it is wrong.  Geology is not directly relevant to geographic classification.  For example:  The State of California, where I live, sits on TWO tectonic plates - the North American plate and the Pacific Plate, east and west of the San Andreas Fault, respectively.  If that (literally) underlying fact were relevant to our geographic classification, them San Francisco would be in North America while Monterrey, Los Angeles, Baja California, etc., would all be on a separate continent (Pacifica?).  But, of course, ALL of Alta and Baja California is located in North America.
North and South America together comprise one landmass that stretches from the Arctic Ocean to Cape Horn.  Whether they are labeled one continent or two continents is a matter of geographic debate.
Geographers who focus on the totality of physical landmass reckon the world has five continents:  Africa, America, Antarctica, Australia, and Eurasia.
A few geographers who really focus on the totality of physical landmass observe that Africa is physically connected to Asia at the Sinai Peninsula, so they reckon there are only FOUR continents - because consider Africa, Europe and Asia to all be one continent.  These geographers are very much a minority, however, but the reason their reasoning is not generally accepted is extremely important (as I will elicit below).
There is also an even smaller minority of geographers who do not classify Australia as a continent but consider it to be the largest island in the world, and to otherwise exist as part of Asia.  Depending how these people regard Africa (some think it separate, some think it part of Africa-Eurasia), there are as few as three continents in the world - America, Antarctica, and "Afri-austral-eurasia."  This view (literally) of the world is NOT shared by very many people.
Now, geographers who focus on topographical boundaries within the five overall landmasses noted three paragraphs above - who currently constitute the majority of geographers worldwide - reckon the world's major landmasses amount to seven continents:  Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia (also reckoned as Australiasia or Oceania, which includes New Zealand and other Pacific Island nations), Europe, North America, and South America.
The boundaries of Antarctica and Australia are obvious (though the boundary of Australasia/Oceania are not).  Likewise, the boundaries of Africa, ignoring the "de minimis" connexion to Asia, are also obvious.
The physical boundaries between Europe and Asia, though seemingly arbitrary, are also somewhat obvious.  From eastern Siberia westward through Poland and northern Germany to the Low Countries and France, Eurasia is almost entirely plain - except for Ural Mountains that conveniently run north to south from the Arctic Sea southward almost to the Caspian Sea, the world's largest lake.  Between the Caspian Sea and the southern reach of the Ural Mountains is a broad plain through which the Ural River flows from the Ural Mountains into the Caspian Sea.  Thus, the Ural Mountains, Ural River, and Caspian Sea are taken together as the principal boundary between Europe and Asia.  The secondary boundary is a line drawn through the Caucasus Mountains from the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, according to highest point of the land.  (Basically, if the prevailing drainage of the land is southward, it's south of the line - and, thus, in Asia; if the drainage is northward, it's north of the line and located in Europe).  The continental boundary at the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardonelles is, of course, a natural boundary - with Asia to the east and Europe to the west (including all islands in the Aegean Sea).  The classification of Rhodes and Cyprus as European and Asian, respectively, is arbitrary in terms of physical geography.  Both are closer to mainland Asia than to mainland Europe, but Rhodes is entirely Greek while Cyprus, although mostly Greek, is also partly Turkish.
The dividing line between mainland North and South America - which, again, is one landmass - is less obvious than the boundaries of Antarctica and Antarctica, but much more obvious than the boundaries between Europe and Asia.  A description of the Americas as a whole is in order.
At the top of North America is a massive Arctic archipelago that is politically shared by Denmark (Greenland) and Canada.  A very small minority of geographers also put Iceland in North America, because it is closer to Greenland than it is to Europe (with which it is almost invariably classified).  But whereas Greenland is the largest in a series of islands in the Arctic Ocean, Iceland is a volcanic island that was created and exists as a geographic isolate.  It's classification as part of Europe is, in terms of physical geography, purely arbitrary; but the island was initially discovered and colonised by the Irish, and then by Norwegians - no Inuit and certainly no Aboriginal Americans have ever lived in Iceland - so if it must be arbitrarily classified as part of North America or part of Europe, the logical place to put it is Europe.
North America is a very broad continent, from east to west and between the Arctic Circle and the Gulf of Mexico.  South of the Rocky Mountains, however, the continent narrows dramatically, forming a series of progressively narrow isthmi (plural of "isthmus").  The narrowest of these is the Isthmus of Panama, and this is the point where North America ends and South America begins.  The islands of the Caribbean, along with Bermuda, Newfoundland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, are all classified as part of North America.  Even islands like Trinidad and Tobago, which are closer to mainland South America than they are to mainland North America, are classified as part of North America.  
In regard to that, there are only two places you can draw a line to classify the Caribbean islands as North American or South American - either the southernmost point of the chain of islands, which is where the line is drawn (somewhat parallel to the line drawn at the Isthmus of Panama); or you could draw it at the northernmost point of the contiguous islands, which would put Cuba and the Bahamas in South America.  
Bermuda is a geographic isolate that is classified as part of North America because it's nearest to North America and, while its people are of both European and African ancestry, it's too far away from either of those continents to ever be considered part of them.  (Iceland, by contrast, is at least located in a semi-string of unrelated islands -- Iceland, the Faeroes, and the Shetlands -- in a straight line between itself and Norway; so there's at least a modicum of logic to putting it in Europe, if you must officially put it anywhere). 
The label "Central America" is ultimately a holdover from the Spanish colonial period.  Colonial master Spain regarded the Americas as ONE continent with four regions.  The broad region to the left (as you faced the Americas from  Spain), or south, was South America; the broad region to the right (north) was North America; the narrow part of the mainland in the middle, behind the islands of the Caribbean, was Central America; and the Caribbean islands, of course, where in the middle between North and South America, and in front of Central America.
But the colonial Spanish view of the Americas as four regions of one continent does not reflect the geographic reality.
Otherwise, whatever else may be said about Central America, the vast majority of professional geographers either classify it as part of North America in a world with seven continents; or as part of the Americas, regarded as one continent, in a world with five continents.  No academically-respected professional geographer has ever suggested that Central America is a continent all to itself.
Beyond that, since I mentioned the rest of the world, the other geographical boundary dispute concerns the beginning and end of Oceania and Asia.  Obviously, mainland Asia is in Asia, and the nearest islands to it - Japan - are in Asia.  The Philippines is also classified as part of Asia because of its proximity to the mainland, but this is an arbitrary classification.  So is the classification of Indonesia and Singapore in Asia - especially with the western half of the island of New Guinea (part of Indonesia) classified as Asian while the eastern half is classified as Oceanian (or Australiasian).
Ethno-culturally, most of the native populations of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Taiwan are Austronesian - not Asian - but Taiwan and the Malaya Peninsula are undoubtedly part of Asia.  So, the line dividing separating the island nations of Oceania/Australasia from the island nations of Asia is purely arbitrary.  Taiwan, Okinawa, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia are assigned to Asia; the islands to the east and south of that line, are assigned to Oceania/Australasia.  The regions of Australasia/Oceania are Australia and its adjacent islands (e.g., Tasmania), Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia (which includes New Zealand, Easter Island, and the Hawaiian Islands - notwithstanding they, like Iceland, are geographic isolates of volcanic origin, the indigenous people of Hawaii are Polynesians who speak an Austronesian language, thus it is considered appropriate to put Hawaii in Polynesia, if one is going to put it anywhere).
------------------
First of all, Central America as far as I know, isnt considered a part of North America at all, the countries considered to be North America being Mexico, United States and Canada. Second, I want to express my opinion that Central America, not considered by geographers either a part of North America or South America, should be considered a continent and I wonder why it isnt.
Antonio the Kween Martin
:In every history and geography book I've seen, Central America has always been listed as part of North America. There's no basis other than cultural for making it its own continent. -Branddobbe 00:32, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
::That's funny. I don't recall any history or geography book that claimed Central America is part of North America. In my US public education, North America was always identified as "Canada, USA, and Mexico". Several times in the past few years, I've trolled the Web to resolve this question, and the references I found never said it's part of either North or South America. I think it makes more sense to call CA part of NA than part of SA or its own continent, but I also recall reading (in some continental drift pages) that some or all of CA was part of the South America landmass that eventually collided with North America.
::So, we have mutually contradicting opinions and possibly overgeneralized experiences. What we lack here is explicit citations of authoritative references. Does anyone have some? -- Jeff Q 21:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My "Essential Atlas of the World", Barnes & Noble press, © 2001, , clearly indicates on page 67 that North America contains everything up to and including Panama.  Not an online reference, but there you go.  Ironically, I'll be starting a geography class June 21st.  On the other hand, wildlife books of "North America" define it as Canada and the United States.  I don't go with that one at all, and assume that they do it because the diversity of birds, trees, mammals etc. explodes as you get past the deserts of northern Mexico, and their books would have to be three times as large (packed with species most Americans will never see).  Personally, I've always thought of Central America as part of North America and never heard anyone, apart from Audobon books and Antonio here, say otherwise. -- Yath 23:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to get authoritative references. Any division system will be conventional and/or tailored to specific needs and requirements – geographical, geological, political, cultural, etc. (think Panama!). Good arguments can be made for any number of continents between three and seven, without even touching on the vexed question of offshore islands. I'd be very suspicious of anyone claiming to be the bearer of the revealed truth (probably more a reflection of the quality – and intensity – of the geographical instruction they received in their formative years). I was taught "five continents" at school, but for the purposes of Wikipedia "seven" is probably the most useful division. With Central America a subdivision (subcontinent?) of North America. –Hajor 23:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Hello!  I believe the article intro is pretty summative about the various meanings and interpretations of what Central America is.  Definitions vary: North and South America are frequently reckoned as one of seven continents, and sometimes as just one – America.  Seismologically, most of Central America is on a distinct tectonic plate (the Caribbean Plate, just as each of North and South America are) and may be a distinct craton, but rarely is Central America referred to as a bona fide continent and more properly a distinct territory/region in the middle of it all.   Moreover, the UN distinguishes between the subregions of Northern America and Central America (including Mexico) – both of which comprise North America – and South America.  One could even argue that CA is a subcontinent, but this viewpoint is not a prevailing one. E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Part of North America?

message: Why does "middle America" redirect here? I thought "middle America" meant middle class suburbia in the United States. -Branddobbe 00:32, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
: If so, that makes at least 3 meanings, so perhaps then Middle America should be made into a disambiguation page. It's also an old term for Mesoamerica. -- Infrogmation 00:48, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle America 

message: I sympathize with SqueakBox's attempt to fight US-centrism, and I'm happy that we agree that geographic ordering is better than alphabetic. But unfortunately, it is a general standard that North is up on maps, and that is how people refer to directions. How about if we instead reversed the definition to "located between the the northwest border of Colombia and southern border of Mexico"? Common Man 00:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I sympathise too, but this isn't the place nor instance to do it: arguably, the south > north order is as POV as the converse and doesn't make much sense in this context.  As Central America is commonly reckoned to be a part of the North American continent, and distinct from South, a description denoting this order seems logical: any number of dictionaries will indicate this primacy.  Can an authority be cited indicating the opposite?  I'd advocate south > north anyday if there was cause to do so, but the bias argument is a red herring here.  E Pluribus Anthony 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As well, the current ed is confusing: if read a particular way, the current ed reads as if Mexico were a part of South America. E Pluribus Anthony 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, you're right, I botched that. As for the direction in the intro, I'm fine either way; I just thought it might be a nice compromise to write it one way in the intro and another in the section. But for the moment, it was easiest for me to just revert the intro to the state before my change, pending some authority to be cited. Common Man 03:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood; I restored the prior lead and perhaps we crossed paths.  I'm all for compromise, but there are likely better places to do it, e.g., Latin America, where South America is arguably the 'major' landmass. E Pluribus Anthony 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: I think that the UN is about as neutral as it gets, which is worth settling for. When their Group of Experts on Geographical Names came up with the term Northern America to refer to a statistical regional grouping, it was quite obviously a deliberate choice to avoid confusion with the entire continent of North America. Admittedly, the name Central America is less fortunate, since there was once a country by that name that was not coterminous with the UN subregion. So where does this all leave Mexico? It is not in Northern America, while it is in North America. Membership in NAFTA does not define North America any more than membership in the Central American Parliament defines the limits of Central America - those are international organizations. //Big Adamsky 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geologically, only part of Mexico is part of North America.  Maybe there should be a table which indicates which countries are in which categories for these various classifications.  (SEWilco 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is subjective: arguably, everything north of the Isthmus of Panama is part of NA (geographically), or all of Panama (politically), and or the West Indies.  I think that's the point: a continent is not merely a geological entity (e.g., tectonic plate, rock formations) but also a geographic and cultural one (region, UN or otherwise).  And, correct me if I'm wong, but few authorities actually cite Central America as a continent but more a region or arguably a subcontinent.  E Pluribus Anthony 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the naming of UN subregions

message: I made two changes that clarify the article, imo. The first was to include Belize and Panama on the list of countries, but to note that they are sometimes left out because they weren't members of the Federal Republic. 
The second was to remove the errors related to the Central American Parliament. Panama _is_ a member of that body, Costa Rica isn't (yet). That is said on the article on the body, and was verified by visiting the Parlacen website. oknazevad 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some revisions

message: While I agree that Belize was not part of the original Central America, ever since it began to move toward independence it has been government policy to insist on our Central Americanness, despite the Guatemalan claim. Most government documents and common usage put in their addresses "Belize, C.A.", the C.A. standing for Central America. Just wanted to clarify Belize's position on this.--206.26.199.146 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Every Latin American know that. Central America is from Guatemala to Panama. Period. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common usage in Belize 

message: Please source the city stats, San pedro is at least .5 million and La Ceiba 0.25 million, so sources neede, SqueakBox 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities