Talk:North America/Archive 3

North America and article ownership
Whenever someone attempts to clarify the "Usage" section, WilyD and others violate WP:OWN. It's unfortunate that this section cannot be improved because of their behavior. 68.89.149.2 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add anything that complies with WP:RS and WP:NOR, and keep in mind WP:NOT and it'll remain. Cheers, Wily D  22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's well explained far above that "North America" is used outside of North America to mean the U.S. and Canada, but that this usage is practically unknown in American English. You're one of the fools who keeps fighting to keep the facts out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.220.20 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to find such sources. Given the prevalence of that usage among speakers of American and Canadian English, you might have your work cut out for you. Wily D  02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From my experience, "North America" means different things in American and Canadian English: in US English, it includes Mexico and Caribbean countries when in Canada English it's ironically complicated: when Canadians try to use "North America" to refer to "US and Canada", it in many cases covers the fact of Canada only. In another word, when Canadians are talking about things about their country, they tend to use the phrase "North America" instead of Canada, even when such a statement has nothing to do with United States, given the significant difference on almost everything of the two adjacent countries.--Henrysh (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WilyD, I can and have provided multiple sources. It's easy to do because among speakers of American English, the overwhelmingly prevalent usage always includes Mexico, including when using "north america" as a cultural region. If any country gets excluded from that "cultural region" (which is an inherently subjective label and thereby absurd to declare that there is a single uniform common usage), then it is Greenland, not Mexico. Often Greenland is thought of, culturally speaking, as closer to Europe and Scandinavia in particular. I can't speak for how Canadians use the phrase North America (as a region rather than a continent), as I have found references to Americans being perplexed and amused by Canadians' tendency to use the term North America exclusive of Mexico (such as the Urban Dictionary entry for North America). However you are simply dead wrong in your opinion that any speakers of American English use the phrase in the manner you describe, exclusive of Mexico. Even the most recent episode of the Daily Show that I'm watching while typing this just contradicted you (see 4 minutes into the 11/06/08 episode on Hulu - http://www.hulu.com/watch/43131/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-nov-6-2008 ). In response to a bit about Palin not being able to name all 3 countries in North America, John Stewart quips:"I mean, there's us (the USA), there's Gay us to the north(Canada), and the Burrito place (Mexico)." I'm sure if you check out American media references to North America you'll find that Mexico is always included. The main problem with the usage section is that it lacks a source which supports the idea that Americans use the phrase in the same way that Canadians do. The link to Fowler's only supports that British English speakers would have that (exclusive of Mexico) usage, which is irrelevant to the subject of how North Americans use the phrase. I'm sure you can make a case that some people in Canada such as yourself use the phrase as you do, but you need to support that, and you have failed completely to provide any support for the notion that American English speakers use the phrase as you do. Also, I would urge you to address the problems with your POV on the talk page instead of continuing to use the edit summary box as your soapbox. (Walterego (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC))
 * The Palin quote is specifically about NAFTA, (e. g. ) - which has three countries signed on. This is the problem with trying to present your own original research - with good editorial oversight, patently false statements (like the existence of a Canada, America, Mexico North America that excludes the rest of North America) like that creep in, that're compatible with the sources you're providing without being supported by the sources you're providing.  Wily D  14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is from John Stewart, not Sarah Palin. It is not about NAFTA, I even typed out a brief transcript of his remark, and at no time was NAFTA. Do you even try to listen to other people, or are other people's opinions just sound bouncing off your cranium? Just because you declare something "patently false" doesn't mean that it is so. You need to provide a source for your contention that Fowler's is a guide to usage of American English, since that contradicts the wikipedia entry which identifies Fowler's as a British guide. If you can't do that, then you need to provide an alternate source for your opinion that North America is used in the way that you falsely claim it is (that it is used to refer to Canada and the USA alone). Everything you said about my edits being "patently false" and "original research" actually applies to your own theory about what you call the "cultural region" of North America which doesn't include Mexico. That isn't the prevalent usage, in fact the opposite is true. The prevalent usage by Americans (perhaps not Canadians) is that North America always includes Mexico, while sometimes excluding Central America. Why do you insist on conducting an edit war over such a subjective issue? Can you explain why I shouldn't just revert the article back to the NPOV edit, or else why the usage section shouldn't just be removed entirely since you refuse to work towards consensus. Walterego (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stewart is commenting on Palin's failure to identify the members of NAFTA; this is the problem with doing your own research and coming to novel conclusions - it's very easy to come to the wrong conclusion without any independent checks. The "cultural region" is vague (in that Bermuda, Greenland & St. Mickey are ambigious), but there's no America+Mexico+Canada cultural region.  This is simply false.
 * Simply false based on what source? The issue here is that you aren't simply claiming that there is a cultural region of North America in British & Canadian english. You're going beyond that to assert that this is also the prevalent usage in American english without any source to back it up. It's comparable to claiming the prevalent spelling of meter in both the US & Canada is "metre", despite it being well known that Americans don't spell it that way. For example, you're also wrong about the Stewart comment. The joke there is funny to the audience of Americans because North America (not NAFTA, Stewart never mentions NAFTA to the audience) is commonly considered to be comprised of US+CAN+MEX, and when Stewart says that Sarah Palin doesn't know that, that makes her stupid not to know such a commonly understood point and that is funny to the audience. Laughter ensues. You have come to a novel conclusion that Americans never use the term North America to refer to a cultural region of USA+CAN+MEX, when in fact that is the dominant usage in American english. Perhaps I haven't proven tha to your satisfaction, but you haven't even tried to prove your own novel conclusion with sources of your own other than Fowler's, which is a source of British english usage. I have tried to write the section to include both ideas, that in Canada the usage is one thing and in the USA it is another, but if that isn't good enough then it makes more sense to me to remove the usage section entirely. Walterego (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Daily Show assumes a certainly "level of knowledge" of world events. Most people couldn't name the countries in North America - I'd probably overlook some if I had to remember them.  But the premise of the joke is that she didn't know the countries in NAFTA - which is where she failed to name the other two countries.   Americans don't use North America to mean MEX+US+CAN; at least not to any significant extent; certainly not those're aware enough of the world to understand the Daily Show's jokes.  The Joke is about Palin's lack of knowledge about NAFTA - which his audience is already familiar with the actual event of.  In any event, it doesn't really matter - neither of us can prove how we interpret this event, which is why no original research is a necessary part of collaborative writing.
 * The Daily Show was referring to a Fox News piece, and it would assume that its viewers generally don't watch Fox News. The premise of the joke was that Palin didn't know the countries in North America, the joke never mentioned NAFTA. The audience would not have been familiar with the event Stewart set up.You could play that video in the past way before NAFTA and the audience response would be exactly the same. I mentioned it because it was relevant in that I'm trying to describe just how common the usage is (of NA as being US+MEX+CAN) that even while I was typing a response the tv played an example. Walterego (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merely asserting that CAN+US+MEX is the dominant usage in America repeatly when we both know that statement to be false is not productive. The "dominant" usage is the formal one convolved with knowledge of geography, if you pull out a dictionary it says America everything north of South America & you can maybe quibble over whether the part of Panama below the canal is North America or South America, but you don't take ignorance of geography to label all four oceans as "Possibly the Pacific", and you don't take ignorance of gography to this either.  "North America" usually means the south end of Panama to the north end of Greenland. If this were to ever hit FA, there might be a footnote about oddities of usage - but as it stands now it's a terrible attempt at balance that still fails WP:UNDUE because the naming & name usage is insignificant in a "big picture" article like this. Wily D  18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "We both know that statement to be false"?!? What a preposterous remark. Do you think I would still be wasting time arguing over such a trivial point if I had ever in my life heard someone use the phrase North Amer to refer to just 2 countries (US+CAN)? I am not a young person, and way before NAFTA I have always heard the phrase used inclusive of Mexico. Your US+CAN usage is as foreign to me as a Mexican saying that North America is just the US+MEX and claiming that Canada is part of some other regional term, I would immediately insist that Canada is indeed part of North America, and if he said "we both know that statement to be false" I wouldn't be any less incredulous. Try to imagine that the usage you are accustomed to in Canada is simply not the case for Americans, ask a few of them whether the region North America to them is 2 or 3 countries (and the 3rd darn sure isn't Greenland). And to be perfectly clear (although I think the context was clear enough) I am using the term "dominant" to mean "prevalent" or "most common", because that is the whole point of the "Usage" section. So far as I can tell there is no "formal" source for the "region" of north america, only for the entire continent, including areas like Greenland that are somewhat beyond the pale. This is why I think a poll would be most usefull as an indicator of the term in common north american speech. Walterego (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The usage stuff could probably go - it's such a tiny, tiny issue, but that'd mean both the CAN + US & CAN+US+MEX. The former is really only discussed to balance the inclusion of the latter, which's of course a fringe POV being pushed. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and English is a single language).  Again your own novel conclusions are leading you astray with respect to fowler's.  If you want to advocate something, this is not the place to do it. Wily D  15:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all trying to push a fringe POV, I just want to correct an inaccuracy because it irritates me to see something in Wikipedia which is false. Walterego (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Replacing a true (if poorly defined) statement with an untrue statement cannot reasonably be characterised as correcting an inaccuracy. Wily D 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can call it untrue, but it is true for speakers of American English, at least in the United States. You yourself concede that English is not a single language. American English is a very large dialect, the speakers of which greatly outnumber speakers of Canadian English and British English combined. And among speakers of American English, the most prevalent usage for the region of NA is of CAN+USA+MEX. So I could call your position the fringe POV just as easily as you can. To me the choice for consensus is clear, we can drop the usage section, or we can say that in Canada the usage is mostly US+CAN while in the USA the prevalent usage is mostly USA+CAN+MEX. Walterego (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'Usage' section was added sometime ago, to assuage editors who felt much as Walterego does, but for different reasons. Given this discussion, it remains a necessity.  Walterego: explain this, where Mexico and everything south is "sometimes" excluded.  As well, The Oxford Companion to the English Language indicates the following for 'North American' (p. 707; emphasis added): "The adjective for North America and the name of a person born in North America, particularly the US and Canada."... 69.158.149.52 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User IP 6815814952, I see your location is in Toronto. If I am wrong about usage in American English, then why is it that only CANADIANS are disputing my point? Anyhow, I can easily explain that cited definition to you. That web page is describing that "sometimes" the phrase North America as a region is used exclusive of EITHER Mexico or Central America or the Carribean. Sometimes implies that one or more of the countries may be excluded. In other words, some people (such as Canadians) use the phrase exclusive of MEX+Central America+Carrib, and some people (such as the overwhelming majority of Americans) use the phrase exclusive of Central America+Carrib. Notice that that page defines Mexico as not part of Central America. As to the second point, the Oxford Companion is published by a British university, and I agree with you that in British English the region NA = US+CAN. I tried to find a compromise with the usage section by editing the page to modify the line "In English" to reading "In British English", or "In Canadian English". Unfortunately it got reverted by the people with ownership issues of this page. I notice that when I stop trying to modify the usage section, other editors try to change it also, and have been for at least the past year. This is because as written it is unsupported by any non-european source, and strikes so many Americans as incorrect as to how the usage genuinely occurs. Walterego (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My location is as (ir)relevant as yours. Anyhow, your analysis is skewed.  The 'about' link indicates not 'or' this and that, or 'any of' this or that, but "Sometimes excludes Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean."  I have noticed you have provided no reputable source to support your argument.  So, why should we disregard or diminish two legitimate (and, might I say, leading) sources regarding English usage, in this article's Usage section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.144.210 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My location is indeed just as relevant as yours. Neither of our locations are irrelevant. The article claims that the way you Canadians use the term is the same way that Americans use the term. I am telling you that is utterly false, and I point out your location because the people arguing with me are a couple Canadians. Both your sources are leading and reputable sources of BRITISH English, which is not relevant to the issue of how speakers of American English use the term. Remember, you are trying to prove that most Americans use the term NA to describe the region of US&CAN, as opposed to US&CAN&MEX. The about link merely asserted that "sometimes" the phrase is used in the 2 nation sense, and it could very well mean that the sometimes occurs when the speaker is Canadian. Previously I have added sources, but they were rejected. I'm simply doing the same, pointing out why your sources (Fowler's Oxford University Press) also are inappropriate. I've added a source in the section below.Walterego (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. That is the extent of my commentary. 69.158.144.210 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Central America is only recognized as part of North America in U.S. culture. Central Americans don't think of themselves as "northamericans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.29.249.46 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen the same problem. Apparently this edit war has been going on for over a year based on the archived history of the page. The prevalent usage in North America always includes Mexico. Perhaps it is commonly taught in Canada that Mexico is in Central America. I find no source other than European sources for this. American sources commonly describe central america as a region within the continent of N America which is between Mexico and South America. Virtually nobody in the USA would ever cross the border into Mexico and believe that they have entered Central America. Strange that there has been so many attempts to correct the notion that Mexico isn't in North America in popular speech, and yet the same few wiki editors (apparently all Canadian, and yet they are so sure that they know how most Americans use the phrase) keep insisting that theirs is the majority view. (Walterego (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

It is not just U.S. culture. North America is a continent, but some people use it as a region apart from Central America region. In parts of Europe and Asia, they consider North America a separate continent as well from South America. As for Central America, that is a region located on the North American continent. It's clear that the region starts at Panama up to Guatemala, but I've seen it include Mexico sometimes and other times not. I don't think it's a difference between U.S. and Canadian, just different conventions in identifying geographical regions. Kman543210 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even this - it's just bad translations of English meanings into Spanish by Spanish-speakers with alright but nonnative English. Nobody but nobody in Canada would use the nomenclature proposed by our Latin American friends in Canada unless they were looking to get jerseyed.  Take a look at sources, it's very hard to find any that consider North America and South America the same continent, but it's easy to find sources that call them the same continente. Wily D  17:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the average Canadian or Canadian culture can be used as a reference to establish geographcial facts? If Canadians think/believe that Mexico is not part of North America what does mean? In Mexico we have always been taught at school that Mexico is in North America, check the books. This was well before NAFTA so please don't tell me that since NAFTA we decided to be North America. Any of us living abroad have to confront two dreadful things: tex-mex food and people placing us in another continent. Nobody but nobody in Mexico understands why do Canadians and Europeans say that we are not part of North America. We are not using a nomenclature based on bad translations it is a slip from your part, an euphemism for saying third world. Mexico is a developing country and it belongs to LatinAmerica (which is a sociological division, not geographical) while Canada and the US are developed countries and they share the language (actually only half of Canada). Many people have then decided that South America means: romance language speaking (if they are a little bit educated as most people in Europe think that ALL countries in Latin America speak Spanish), developing country and south of the US. Another issue to consider: a chunk of the US used to be Mx (I am not a nationalist, I don't care about those territories). So where did North America stopped at around 1820s? Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In usual parlance, North America, as an English-language term, is overloaded. Geographically, it refers to the landmass north of either the Panama-Colombia border, or the Panama canal (I've seen both used).  In this sense, Mexico is definitely part of North America.  Any school in Canada would teach that Mexico is part of North America, just as they'd teach that Bermuda, Jamaica and Costa Rica are parts of North America.  This is the continent of North America.  There's also a "cultural region" of North America, which is essentially used to mean "America+Canada", although implicitly Greenland, Bermuda and St. Pete and Miqqy as well, I think (assuming the speaker knows they exist).  This contrasts Latin America, not South America.  Nobody is advocating that Mexico is part of South America that wouldn't also advocate America beat Europe in World War II. Wily D  13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I clarified a little the situation (I think) pointing to the article on Continent, which states correctly that America is seen as a single continent in Latin America, the Iberian Peninsula, Greece, Iran, some parts of Europe and by the Olympic Committee, while in the rest of the world North America and South America are taught to be separated continents. This way the article on continents and this article are "unified" and consistent. I'm certain that Latin Americans divide what they call America (what english speakers call "the Americas") into three subcontinents: North America, Central America and South America, with "borders" at the Rio Grande and the Colombia-Panama border. I understand this is a thorny issue, because people in the US is offended by Latin Americans calling themselves "americans", while Latin Americans think that this is some kind of conspiracy by US citizens to "appropriate" what they consider to be the name of the continent for the use of a single country. Too bad that "Unitedstatians" ("Estadounidenses", as they're called in Latin America) is not a name accepted by citizens of the United States of America. I think it's similar to the Eurasia vs Europe/Asia division, that Russians find arrogant. Frankly, to be consistent with the division of continents, US citizens should call themselves Northamericans, but it is understandable because they've shortened the name of their country to America, and there lies the crux of the issue. Please, note that this shortening of the name is coloquial, it's not in any way official. Finally, I must add that the very name of United States of America shows that when the country was baptized, the system of continent division was the one used in Latin America, Spain, etc., a system that is called the "ancient" system of continents, in the Continent article. Otherwise, US founding fathers would have called the country United States of North America (or United States of the Americas). The use by the Olympic Committee of the same system (a single American continent) shows also that the division of the Americas (or America) in two continents has its origins around late XIXth century. I cannot explain otherwise that, when the US of America stated its infamous Monroe Doctrine, it was stated as "America for the Americans". I humbly believe that this phrase shows, in first place, the political overtone of the current "english-speaking" division of the continent, and in second place, that in the times of Monroe, America was a considered to be a single continent, even in the US. If not, Mr. Monroe would have followed the current US convention and called his doctrine "the Americas for the Americans". When Monroe spoke of America he was clearly speaking of the whole continent, he did not follow the current convention, QED. Ciroa (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Usage debate continued
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Simply, no and no. And, I'm not WilyD.  69.158.144.210 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want buddy to stop making specious sockpuppeting accusations, please consider registering an account. See 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. Wily D  13:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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   Wily D  15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Wily D  02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Lewis and Wigen discuss the usage of North America in passing in their book The Myth of Continents (ISBN 0520207432.) 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)&mdash;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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for the link to the Lewis and Wigen book, The Myth of Continents (ISBN 0520207432.) 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)
 * 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)

About the largest cities
I was thinking that since this article is about the whole continent and obviously Central American cities are being overshadowed by the north American ones, and some users seem to want to add the largest cities in Central America, I proposed (as someone did before) for simply add "Central America" below the 5 largest cities, so they can show up as well, like this: Supaman89 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Mexico City New York Los Angeles etc. Central America Guatemala City Tegucigalpa etc.


 * Strikethrough 208.79.184.124 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like, but people still change everything, they do not understand that Central America must be included, though not sure, I think they simply don't want to highlight Hispanophone countries. 190.140.233.179 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot make a little country hold a larger population than Northern American ones, which are bigger, you must include the Central American population cause at least one of the Central Americans is among the largest.

JUST INCLUDE A CENTRAL AMERICAN CITY. Cocoliras (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the edit, the list being used, which is the second one in , is for urban agglomerations in 2003, not cities in 2005. It's better to use the newer, 2005, data found in .  Also, the edit does not match the source.  According to the source, the largest urban agglomerations in the North American continent below Boston are Houston, Washington D.C., and Atlanta, rather than Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Houston.  Spacepotato (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok. Tell me if I'm bad, but isn't most infobox to list the cities instead of the metro areas, that overshadows completely countries with smaller sizes. It would be something very sad to see that. I may stay calm currently them. But South America and Central America do have it that way.

As you can see as well, you at least should include something like "in North America" or "if North America includes Central America" cause Central America's classification is ambiguous. Both a continent or a part of one.

Cocoliras (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It's better to use metro areas instead of cities proper because, even if the population within city boundaries is small, a city may serve as the center of a larger urbanized area. For example, Boston has a 2006 population of under 600,000 but is the center of a larger urbanized area (population >4 million), and so is effectively a much larger city than the 600,000 figure would suggest.  I would suggest using metro areas for South America and Central America as well.  In any case, using cities proper would not place a Central American city in the top ten.
 * 2) The ambiguity of North America is regrettable, but we show the extent of the continent in the infobox map, and describe it in the second sentence of the article.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, S. Quizimodo (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we at least should place a link to the largest Caribbean and Central American metro areas, since we should give aparted room to them as they are the largest in their own North American region.

I think this dispute is done.

Cocoliras (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm including a link to the rest of the largest cities in central america. it is ok.

Cocoliras (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the justification for that, as the article is about the continent as a whole, not about subregions. I'd like to instead suggest placing a list of subregions (Caribbean, Central America, Middle America, and Northern America) of the continent to the infobox.  Then, a reader who wished to see the largest cities in Central America could simply click on the link. Spacepotato (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I prefer to use the follow regions: Central America, Caribbean and the North American region, but many wont be agree with me; some will like to use the subregions of: Northern America and Middle America, but many (including myself) wont be agree. The use of Northern America instead the North American region follows the UN geoscheme and wont cause any conflict, but the use of Middle America will do. While Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean are included in MA, it could includes parts of South America too. JC 08:20, 11 January 2008 (PST)
 * Middle America rarely includes Colombia and Venezuela, which wash upon the Caribbean Sea. Just as North America may occasionally mean something different than the continent, Middle America, Central America, Latin America, and the Caribbean do as well in English.  All of this is already incorporated into the article (e.g., 'Usage' section and elsewhere), so why does this persistently pop up?  discard your fixation with this and get over it.  I opt to keep the subregions in the introductory table as is, or to remove them completely from the introductory table, since no other CONTINENT article does so to cater to whomever.  That's all. Corticopia (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not all, I want to reach the point of North American ambiguous term, since North America is not always classified as including North America, you are the one who would need to get over it. I simply do not like the fact of smaller largest cities being overshadowed, I just suggested to include a link to a full link which will not diminish the importance of North America. In reality, Central America currently has more influence and popularity than North America, and I won't let the cities of my subregion be overshadowed. Cocoliras (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If readers want to learn about the largest cities in Central America, there's an excellent place for them to do that - Central America. You may not like that fact that the largest cities list only includes the largest cities ... but that's a far more proper way than "cities like by some random guy on the internets". Wily D  19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * North America is not always classified as including North America? You may not like that there are no Central American cities of significance in terms of what was based from the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division at the United Nations, but those are the facts. Your last statement, that Central America has "more influence and popularity than North America" is pure original research. In addition, if readers want to know more about Central America, wel... there is a Central America page devoted to that. You have been notified of this previously; accept consensus or discuss possible changes, but continued edit warring will only pose further problems.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Original Research, though true, we aren't speaking in reality about that. But I want to reach the point that no cities should be left. I placed a link to a full list and the Central America page to clarify the fact you have told me. Even Canadian cities such as Montreal are overshadowed by US. I want also to reach the point that its not fair for it, US is a larger country, and as such is more populous, so I think it is UNFAIR to let that country take all the credit just for its size, since I do not know of a Central American sized country whose population surpasses the US.

I restored the headnote, since it announced HOW THE ARTICLE is written, not how many ambiguities exist. The article refers to the continent as including Central American and the Caribbean regions, and not as the US, Canada and Mexico alone. Since there are different ways of writing ambiguous articles, I want to tell people HOW, it is written.

That's all.

Cocoliras (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My proposed changes to the page are currently adding a hatnote notifying people how the article refers to North America, as there are several ways of reffering to it. Also, I wanted to place a reference that will guide readers to the rest of the largest cities that are beneath the 10th largest. I think we should place it along with the reference to the ten largest cities as reference number two. I also think we should forget about the subregions since the matter is complicated and we may take some days to address the situation.

Cocoliras (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in making an article like List of cities in North America by population or List of urban areas in North America by population, feel free to do so and it'd probably be linkable within "Demographics" - I'm not sure about the infobox, which realistically already has too many cities in "largest cities". You could also see List of the largest metropolitan areas in the Americas & Largest cities in the Americas, both of which are terribly broken examples of how not to do this.  Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits is a good example to emulate. Wily D  20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, here, I'll start: Largest urban areas in North America.  Wily D  20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As for hat notes - unless we're disambigging, hat notes aren't really appropriate - the opening paragraph(s) note what we mean by "North America", and there are a few footnotes on vague or geographically ignorant uses. Wily D 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "North America"
North America in English language is not real North America nowadays, the caribbean is not of North America (Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico), the caribbean is considered part of Central America sometimes, please check this, must be fixed.--Prodiynet (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a citation for this?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The islands of the archipelago of the Caribbean is known as The Antilles 216.29.249.46 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no difficulty in finding citations for this use of North America, e.g., MSN Encarta. We just aren't using it in this article. Also, cf. Americas (terminology). Spacepotato (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, the Encarta citation must also be used, along with any other source, not only one particular POV. -- the D únadan 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We discuss this issue in the "Usage" section. Spacepotato (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the discussion is done properly, nor given its due weight. For starters, it implies that the usage of North America including Mexico is restricted to "entities" of which NAFTA is the most clear case. The Encarta source proves otherwise: it is a geographic usage. (Let me cite: 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)."). In fact, Encarta defines North America exclusive of Central America as a continent. Secondly, I don't think it is given its due weight; Encarta is only one of many publications with this usage. Many other publications (and I am more than happy to produce a list), include Mexico in North America and exclude Central America. -- the D únadan 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the sentence in question, the "entities" are territories apart from Canada, the USA, and Mexico (e.g., Bermuda) which may be included in the truncated North America. The sentence does not imply that this sense of North America is restricted to NAFTA and similar organizations.  However, you raise an interesting point.  If North America is defined to be exclusive of Central America, and both North America and South America are continents, then it follows that we are no longer using the 7-continent model.  Rather, we are using a "7+ continents" model where Central America is neither a continent nor an island, but is a link between two continents.  Spacepotato (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that Encarta, in its article about North America, goes on to indicate that "North America is sometimes defined to include Central America and the West Indies, which are treated separately in Encarta Encyclopedia", while its entry in Encarta Dictionary notes it is a continent which "comprises Central America, Mexico, the United States, Canada, and Greenland." Let's remain focused, shall we?  Quizimodo (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Scapegoat, while the sentence does not imply a restriction its construction is confusing; "it may include Mexico as in NAFTA and other entities". Being a very common usage of the term (as explained below), besides being confusing, it is clearly giving it undue weight.

Quizimodo, I don't argue that North America as a continent stretches from Alaska to Panama and is inclusive of Central America. But I do argue that the usage of North America inclusive of Mexico and exclusive of Central America is far more pervasive (at least in the US if you guys want to restrict it to English-speaking countries) than what the article is giving it credit for. The Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations (2001), the Encyclopedia of Worlds Nations (2002), the World Geographic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill (1995), the Oxford Dictionary of the World (1999) and Britannica do not include Mexico in their list of Central American countries, and define Central America as the "strip of land that joins North America with South America". Now links to "usage" (not encyclopedias, and regardless of the content of the page), , , , , , , , , , , , and the many publications of OECD.

Honestly, this discussion is as old as the article itself. However, either through an honest defense of what they believe to be right (being a clear case of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia), or outright ownership of the article, some users object to the many valid reputable sources that have been provided that claim a different story. The tacit consensus has been to simply avoid the topic in the article. At least, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, a better and more comprehensive explanation should be made of the [increasing] usage of the term North America inclusive of Mexico and exclusive of Central America, than a mere one confusing sentence at the end of the article.

-- the D únadan 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have misquoted the sentence, which contains parentheses.
 * I agree that North America is frequently used as exclusive of Central America. I disagree however with your implication that this use is opposed to usage referring to the continent.  Rather, it may also be continental, as illustrated by Encarta, the Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, or the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica (see the start of the "Geology" section).
 * Given that Wikipedia has settled on the 7 continents model, I'm satisfied with the structure of the article as it stands. The 7+ continents model may merit a mention in Continent.
 * My name is "Spacepotato", not "Scapegoat".
 * Spacepotato (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Spacepotato; the structure of this article and weight given to various reckonings is fine as is; also, I believe the 'continent' article already deals with these notions fairly. Oh yeah: I was starting to wonder who Scapegoat was. ;) Quizimodo (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for changing your name. I might have been misunderstood: I do not oppose the meaning of North America as a continent spreading from Alaska to Panama. I do not oppose the model of 7 continents. I do not propose for a 7+ continent scheme. I am talking about a somewhat common usage of the term North America (which some people dared to call a "region"). (And as far as I recall reading at WP:Systemic bias, we should be careful in using 1911 as it is outdated, specially when it comes to "usages"). Moreover, only one sentence is devoted to that endeavor, that is, talking about usages, which is also, at least in my opinion confusing. -- the D únadan 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just what I've claimed before. These terms change overtime.  Many used to consider North America as anything north of the Rio Grande (Think back to your childhood TV shows now.) Once NAFTA was created, Mexico has since become solidly integrated into the trade agreement with the United States and Canada...  Yet- If you go back to the 1960's-1970's CONTEL (The forerunner of GTE & Verizon) was busy spending large amounts of money in Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago to name a few for integrating those countries into the North American Numbering Plan....  These countries today are still a part of it, meaning you only need to dial a +1 plus the area code to reach those countries.

(876 for Jamaica, 246 for Barbados, and 868 for Trinidad and Tobago. All formerly 809)

Now today, if CONTEL/GTE were just now moving into the Caribbean I bet you they probably wouldn't have put many of the Caribbean countries onto the North American area code system. It is more likely Mexico would have been put into it. I agree these definitions change over time. It is just like how in the Caribbean we consider Guyana and Suriname as Caribbean countries.... Because almost the entire population in those countries live on the coastline and have almost no roads in their interior... All of their trading was along the coast with their Caribbean brothers and sisters. CaribDigita (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the fact that conceptions change with time. But that doesn't address my concern, that in Academia the current conception is different from it was from the 1970s, and the article is not giving it due weight. After all, like I mentioned before, the difference between 1911 Britannica and Wikipedia is that we must show updated information, whether in data, scientific developments and political, social and cultural conceptions. -- the D únadan 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with people that sees the continents division as arbitrary, politically based and evolving. I added to the article the notion that the continent is divided in different ways by different cultures, which I think is the least that can be said. I find important to make consistent this article with the one on Continents, which I think is clearer about the cultural-based divisions of the Earth and the different "models" for continent division. Anyway, this is an article in the english wikipedia, it should follow current english conventions, stating, as I added, that in other cultures (and their respective wikipedias) conventions are different. I wasn't able to find concrete references about when the division in two continents started in english speaking countries, but when America was originally baptized, it clearly included North and South America, you can check here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071204-map-picture.html. What english speakers could understand is that, probably, this division started after the Monroe Doctrine, and, as The Dúnadan mentions, it was completely consolidated during the Cold War, thorny issues in themselves. As I said previously in this discusion page, US is NOT called "United States of North America" and Monroe did NOT say "the Americas for the Americans", which proves to me that the division in two continents must be relatively recent, even for US and Canadian people. Ciroa (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can find the actual speech, or at least part of it, here. The phrase America for Americans does not appear, but the phrase the American continents, note plural, does appear. --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

North American countries by regions
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 D únadan 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

North American plants and animals?
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)

Population
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)

Central America is not part of North America
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)
 * 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.  Wily D  21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This statement relies upon a Spanish to English translation which is demonstratably false. Wily D 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Wily D  14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

what it is
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)
 * You need to check your maps mate, especially the one about Central America. Supaman89 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EU in many other languages different from inìenglish is condidered 1st in gdp.So why don't you change the ranking of usa?Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.189.194 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Why is Mexico city #1??
Why on Earth is Mexico city number 1? As the largest aglomaration in North America? WHen is not even in the top 5?? Los Angeles, New York and even Atlanta and Houston are larger (in mi2), or is it based on its pop??? Ive changed the same info in the Spanish Wiki, when the put Mexico city as the largest city in North America, anyway... A ref would be nice.. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 06:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By populations, yes. Wily D 10:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does cite a supporting source for the list in the infobox of the five most populous cities: this one, and goes on to specifically cite Table A.12 there, headed "Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2005". An "urban agglomeration" isn't exactly the same thing as a City, of course, but that is the source the article cites. I also looked here at an undated (but apparently more recent than 2005) table headed, "Largest Cities of the World - by population". I also checked U.S. census figures here. Here's what I saw:
 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

! Rank in article ! Agglomeration name ! Agglomeration population (2005) (thousands)  ! City name ! City population (thousands)  ! Census (2000) ! Census (2007)
 * 1 || New York - Newark || 19,411 || New York || 16,626 || 8,008,278 || 8,274,527
 * 2 || Ciudad de México (Mexico City) || 18,718 || Mexico City || 18,131 || - || -
 * 3 || Los Angeles - Long Beach - Santa Ana || 12,298 || Los Angeles || 13,129 || 3,694,820 || 3,834,340
 * 4 || Chicago || 8,814 || Chicago || 6,945 || 2,896,016 || 2,836,658
 * 5 || Philadelphia || 5,392 || Philadelphia || 4,398 || 1,517,550 || 1,449,634
 * - || Toronto || 5,312 || Toronto || 4,657 || - || -
 * - || Dallas - Fort Worth || 4,655 || Dallas || 3,912 || 1,188,580 || 1,240,499
 * - || Atlanta || 4,304 || Atlanta || - || 416,474 || 519,145
 * - || Washington D.C. || 4,238 || Washington D.C. || 3,927 || 572,059 || 588,292
 * - || Houston || 4,230 || Houston || 3,918 || 1,953,631 || 2,208,180
 * - || San Francisco - Oakland || 3,385 || San Francisco || 4,051 || 776,733 || 764,976
 * }
 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * - || Dallas - Fort Worth || 4,655 || Dallas || 3,912 || 1,188,580 || 1,240,499
 * - || Atlanta || 4,304 || Atlanta || - || 416,474 || 519,145
 * - || Washington D.C. || 4,238 || Washington D.C. || 3,927 || 572,059 || 588,292
 * - || Houston || 4,230 || Houston || 3,918 || 1,953,631 || 2,208,180
 * - || San Francisco - Oakland || 3,385 || San Francisco || 4,051 || 776,733 || 764,976
 * }
 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * - || San Francisco - Oakland || 3,385 || San Francisco || 4,051 || 776,733 || 764,976
 * }
 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article and the table above to rank Philadelphia as #5 instead of Dallas. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect in two ways:
 * You have left out Miami, which has a 2005 urban agglomeration population of 5,434 million, higher than Philadelphia's.
 * You have interchanged the urban agglomeration populations of Mexico City (19,411 million) and New York City (18,718 million.)
 * According to the source, the top five urban agglomerations, as of 2005, are Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami, in that order. Spacepotato (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why U.S.A Point Of View??
Why this article shows only the USA point of view??, what about United Kingdom, Australia, SouthAfrica and all the others english speakers countries? They all know (like all the world) to North America isnt a Continent, is a SubContinent of America, America is not divided in continents, America is a single continent (from Canada to Argentina), only United States divide North America as a continent, and only United States refuse to accept Mexico as part of North America.. North America doesn't mean speak english and be rich and white or be a first world country, North America isn't a culture or cultural division, North America means BE in the North of American Continent. is too hard to get?..... (extra) The first name of Mexico was Northern America (America Septentrional in spanish)and after change to United Mexican States (1824-2009) With intervals as the second mexican empire during the french invasion.

Why many people feel itching that Mexico is in North America??.jmko22 (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first claim is incorrect. The 7-continent model is used throughout the Anglophone world. Spacepotato (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any significant reluctance in the U.S. to accept that Mexico is in North America&mdash;but then I've lived outside of the U.S. for quite a while. Can you point to a part in this article which you feel has that problem? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * jmko, you are simply not correct about Americans when you say they refuse to accept Mexico as part of North America. The truth is that they overwhelmingly do consider Mexico part of N.A. However, it is very unusual to lump North and South America together as one single continent, just as it is very uncommon to refer to Europe and Asia (and Africa) as one continent, though the three landmasses are connected. Walterego (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Count me as another American who prior to reading this article had never heard of a definition of North America that didn't include Mexico. The claim that "only United States divide North America as a continent..." is just bizarre and completely wrong. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that such a definition would be bizarre, but I find no such definition in the article, even going back edit-by-edit to Revision as of 03:31, March 24, 2009, which was prior to your comment above. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Under usage: "In English, North America is often used to refer to the United States and Canada exclusively.[22]". I would contend that statement is at best misleading, as it ignores that in the USA the term is most certainly not "often" used that way. The line I quoted in my earlier comment was from jmko's comment that started this section of discussion. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is sourced directly from Fowler's Modern English Usage (which focuses on British English but also covers English from around the world), and the note associated with that assertion was put in place because of constant deletion or subjective reframing. The actual quote from Fowler's is (emphasis added): "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together."  In addition, the Lewis and Wigen reference indicates that Central America is usually excluded and Mexico sometimes excluded from North America; so, by inference, the United States and Canada are unequivocally included.  There is also no mention of American English associated with that reference, and the NOAA reference is no more valid than, say, UNESCO.  So, this must all be balanced with other available references.  Thus, I have restored the prior text, but retained the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.211.214 (talk • contribs)
 * The problem with the text you restored is that the topic of the Usage subsection of this article is how the phrase "North America" is used by people who live in North America (both English/Spanish speakers). As was discussed extensively in the usage debate above, Europeans tend to use the phrase NA to mean only the US+CAN+Greenland (and the references from Fowler's/the UN reflect this western european perspective(and the euro perspective is divergent, as some there consider America all one continent, while others equate NA/SA as Latin Amer/Anglo Amer.)). But the article should not simply reflect the Eurocentric perspective, especially since the usage section deals with the phrase as commonly used by North Americans. The predominant usage among North Americans does not place Mexico in Central America. That was why the quoted reference from the Lewis and Wiggen (which is an example of American English rather than British English as it was published in the USA) source is more relevant to this particular section. As you noted, L&W define the term as such, that "usually" NA = US+CAN+MEX, but that "sometimes" NA = US+CAN only. The text now reflects this, while giving both the British English and American English usages their fair due. Walterego (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No: the subsection is about the usage of the term in total in English (and other languages). No source has been provided that deals specifically with American English (though this is implicit with the Lewis and Wiggen reference).  That is no reason to trump a legitimate reference from (well) an English usage guide.  As well, no other source aside from those already provided explicitly supports what North Americans may include or exclude.  So, I've restored the previous long-standing text. 69.158.148.214 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lewis/Wiggen source is a clear example of American English usage. So you ought not to have restored the previous text without discussing it on the talk page.Walterego (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is implicit, not explicit. You ought not to have made opinionated inferences about what varieties of English this and that apply to, failed to provide other reputable sources, and edited long-standing text before discussing it on the talk page and garnered consensus before doing so - as the note says.  BRD. 69.158.148.214 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether implicit or explicit is irrelevant, unless you suppose that Lewis/Wiggen is not an example of American English usage. What variety of English is it an example of if not American? The authors are American, the book (an entirely reputable source) was published in the US. The notion that Fowler's speaks for all varieties of English usage on the matter of North America is your unsupported opinion. Just because Fowler's claims to be able to do this doesn't mean that it actually succeeds in doing so. Apparently this is one case where it doesn't speak for all varieties of language. Walterego (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondly I did discuss this in the section "more on usage" (back in March, see above) long before I edited the page, and no one responded. You haven't made any effort to incorporate the substance of the Lewis/Wiggen source, which is that usually Mexico is included with the USA & Canada in popular usage. You just automatically revert to the older, now discredited wording, for which there never was a consensus, as the talk page and article history indicate. A genuine consensus is not when nobody else has the patience to keep working to fix the article's problems in the face of stubborn resistance from a couple editors who refuse to acknowledge that the article is highly misleading as previously written. That's not consensus, it's stalemate. Look at the other comments from American editors (such as most recently the username "on thermonuclear war") - they have never heard of Mexico being excluded from North America in any usage of popular speech. Walterego (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that WP:MOS says, "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial. ..." To the extent that this extends beyond differences in language usage and becomes a clash of differing points of view, the WP:NPOV policy comes into the picture. I urge everyone who sees this as a POV clash to read at least the lead section of the WP:POV essay. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, iterated above. 69.158.148.214 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 69.158, if you agree that no national variety of language is more correct than another, then why do you insist that only the British variety of English be considered, and the American one be excluded or dismissed as less common? Why do you insist that Fowler's is the only correct source for usage of the entire english language, to the exclusion of any other variety of that language? Walterego (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. 69.158.148.214 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue in the "usage section" is not what is "correct", but how the phrase is used in popular vernacular. Prior to my editing this article last fall, the article gave the impression that virtually nobody considered Mexico part of N America and distinct from Central America, whereas if one were to ask North Americans (both english and spanish speakers) the overwhelming majority would say the opposite, that there are 3 main nations in NA, (and they are the USA, Canada, & Mexico) not only 2. That is why the UN reference below is not really relevant to the topic of the usage subsection, let alone more authoritative. Fowler's, on the other hand, is definitely relevant, but more to usage in British English rather than North American usage. The problem I originally confronted when I first started editing this article was that a couple editors from Canada were adamant that only the British English usage is commonly used even in North America, when in fact the opposite is true. Walterego (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and will have to do a much better job of proving your case through sourcing. The text is currently sufficient, as it indicates 'North America' is often (not always or mostly) used in reference to the United States and Canada and that Mexico may be included in North America without added qualification.  Your edits give the impression that it is always or mostly included, where in fact many North Americans (at least from an ethno-cultural perspective) do not include it -- e.g., North American English.  As pointed out by another above, Fowler's covers all variants of English, with emphasis on British English.  69.158.148.214 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The text was not sufficient, because it gave the impression that 'North America' is more often used to the exclusion of Mexico than inclusive of it, which is utterly false, at least in the USA and Mexico. The reason that the text was insufficient is that something that happens "often" obviously occurs less seldom than something that "alternatively may" occur. I did prove my case through sourcing that Mexico is usually included, because the fact is that much more often than not Mexico is included, and I was paraphrasing the exact terms used in the Lewis and Wiggen book - usually for NA=CAN+USA+MEX and sometimes for just CAN+USA. Can you provide a source which contradicts that this is the case in American English? You have not thus far and the wording previously used did not. My edit certainly did not give the impression that Mexico is always included (since there are apparently at least two wikipedia editors in Canada who use it otherwise), my edit stated very fairly that sometimes NA is used to mean USA&CAN without MEX. Lewis and Wigen's book stated the case more clearly than any other North American source in the article. Your claim that Lewis and Wiggen's book is wrong is completely inaccurate. Perhaps it is accurate for many Canadians, and speakers of Canadian English, I'm not trying to dispute that (although personally I doubt it greatly based on discussions with relatives in Canada). But the sources provided make it clear that speakers of North American English, of which the bulk are speakers of American English, usually use the term North America (from an ethno-cultural perspective) to mean the USA, Canada, AND Mexico. Thank you for conceding that Fowler's emphasizes British English. Fowler's is not a relevant source for popular usage of American English. Walterego (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to appease are insufficient, and actually comes across as insulting. You invoke that claims are 'false', but have not provided anything substantial to support that.  Your paraphrase is actually inaccurate: primacy is given to the inclusion of Canada and the United States, so your grouping of Mexico with those two countries puts it on par when in fact the Lewis/Wiggen wording conveys that it is not included as frequently.  (And that reference isn't being discounted or given any more or less weight than others, it is simply being interpreted correctly and put in context with other available ones.)  As well, your edit is inaccurate in that you note the varieties of American, British, and Canadian English -- without a source, I might add -- but there are other varieties: you are drawing inferences.  Moreover, actually, Fowler's describes itself as a guide focusing on British English but also as a guide to English as used around the world.  In its mention of what the Americas comprise, it makes no qualification regarding what variety of English that applies to.  Lastly, your edits are not supported by any sort of consensus, so you will be corrected until they are. That is all. 69.158.148.214 (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously the problem is that you are completely misunderstanding the quoted source. You state that "the Lewis/Wiggen wording conveys that it (mexico) is not included as frequently." Please read the Lewis/Wiggen quote again, it clearly conveys the opposite, that Mexico is included more frequently than not. Let me provide it for here again- "in common parlance Central America is usually excluded, while in some circumstances Mexico is deleted as well" Do you not understand that the term usually indicates greater frequency than the term in some circumstances? Speech usage that occurs "usually" may be said to be used most of the time. Speech usage that occurs in "some" circumstances may be said to happen only some of the time. This is the opposite of what Fowler's says, so what we have is a conflict between two sources. Wikipedia's own entry on Fowler's describes Fowler's as "a style guide to British English usage". You yourself admit that Fowler's focuses on British English. Since no variety of language is more correct than another, why dismiss one source (or misinterpret it, as you have Lewis/Wiggen) in favour of another that focuses on a different variety of language? Walterego (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have not misinterpreted the reference. Obviously, among your problems, you seem to not be placing the one source you provided within the context of not only others provided but the current article text.  You harp about Fowler's emphasis on British English (which I pointed out as a courtesy) but on its back cover it says: "[It provides i]n depth coverage of British and American English, with reference to the English of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa"; also, wiki articles are not necessarily authoritative.  So, it is just as appropriate a source as any, and even more germane regarding usage of the term.  In addition, the current article text includes 'often' (regarding the U.S. and Canada) and 'may' for Mexico, which seems to be a conciliation (based on a glance at the article's tortured history regarding this), so what's the beef?  I see little reason to change equitable, referenced text that has been in place for some time with inaccurate, unsourced text because you apparently have a bone to pick.  Moreover, your edits are not supported by any consensus and you have not proven why the text should be changed.  I'll comment further when there's a need to.  69.158.148.214 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The text should be changed because I've shown from sources that it is not accurate. When you say you have not misinterpreted the Lewis/Wiggen reference, does that mean you acknowledge that the L/W wording indeed coveys that Mexico is included more frequently than not? I've clearly shown that is what the wording conveys. I understand the context of both the L/W book and the current article. Sure, Fowler's professes to cover both British English and American English. The book of Genesis claims to tell how the earth was created in 7 days. That doesn't mean that Fowler's completely succeeds in accurately defining usage of every single entry. It is in clear conflict with the Lewis/Wiggen book. Fowler's is relevant as a definition of how the term is used by people other than Americans. As the L/W book shows, however, people in the USA do not use the phrase as Folwer's describes. You keep saying "your one source" and then reflexively go back to your own one source, Fowler's. If you want more sources than the Lewis/Wiggen source, let me remind you of several that I cited earlier in the debate above: http://www.msuglobalaccess.net/geo/, http://www.spp.gov/, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562468/North_America.html. I focus on the L/W book because it states so clearly what the usage of the phrase is, which is that N.A. is usually used to mean Mexico, Canada, & USA. So my text was both sourced and accurate. Since when is there a problem including sourced accurate text in a wikipedia article? The current text is not supported by consensus, as a look at the tortured history of the page makes obvious.It has only been in place for some time because a couple determined editors from Ontario have taken ownership of the page and automatically revert edits to reflect their own POV, whereas other editors don't care enough about such a tiny subject to become invloved for more than a few comments or an edit that gets reversed.Walterego (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I take heart however, at your comment that you consider the terms "often" (regarding the British sense of N.A. being USA+Canada) and "may" (concerning the American English usage)to be "equitable". Since you consider these terms equal, then I propose the appropriate compromise is to switch the two phrases, since you say there isn't any beef with whether "often" or "may" is used.Walterego (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Circular argumentation and wordiness: you have shown little beyond what others have tried to, and the text is supported by numerous references in the article (which you neglect to consult or are just ignorant of). You invoke Genesis, and I will invoke Hitler -- your point?  None.  I will keep this simple for you.  I have amended the article text, since your proposal is not totally sufficient.  If that is insufficient, then the long-standing text will be restored until a consensus supports your proposed edits, or your edits will be corrected. 69.158.145.150 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that a consensus does indeed support correcting the false impression that the Fowler's reference creates. One would need only look up this discussion section and the article history to see many other editors who agree the Fowler's reference is inaccurate as far as usage in American English is concerned. The problem is apparently that this consensus does not include you, 69.158, because you refuse to recognize that Fowler's (at least in this case) does not reflect all varieties of English language, so you keep reverting the page back to reflect this British-centric POV. You seem to have missed my point about Genesis, allow me to explain in greater detail. Fowler's claims to be a guide to all usage of all varieties of English, just as the book of Genesis claims to describe how the Earth was created in 7 days. I have provided several sources that contradict Fowler's in this specific instance. So although I'm sure that Fowler's is generally a good source for usage of American English as well as British, in this case it fails to accurately define American English usage. I notice that you complain about my "wordiness", you should realize I spend time writing out responses to your points out of consideration for your point of view, whereas you make declarations that seem aimed to shut down debate: "I will not continue to indulge until you convince otherwise. Someone else might. Goodbye" "will be corrected until they are. That is all" "I'll comment further when there's a need to".  How incredibly condescending. And I'm supposed to believe you have the slightest interest whatsoever in achieving a consensus? Walterego (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Blusterous gobbledygook. As you can see, no consensus supports your edits, or recent subjective changes to sourced material that has been in place for some time.  Why should I prolong discussion with you when you're going in circles and it is getting nowhere, and you revert with renowned POV-pushers while claiming 'consensus'?  Someone else might choose to engage you, but I won't.  69.158.153.127 (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, I also note that the References section item currently numbered [3] in the article is . I would consider that somewhat more authoritative on the topic which it addresses than Fowler's Modern English Usage. It defines North America as comprising three components:
 * Northern America (which comprises Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and United States of America)
 * Caribbean (which comprises Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Martin (French part), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and United States Virgin Islands
 * Central America (which comprises Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the good thing to speak two languages, in the Spanish speaker world America is a single continent, we don't divide the continent in two, United States divided in the past the country in two because like they were white and all the rest of the continent are mixed, the wanted their own continent, but the world never accepted that, all the world count America like a single continent, only the Anglophone world divide America in 2, actually I was speaking with a girl from United Kindom and she told me in England schools they teach American continent like a single continent. But I don;t blame you if your school teach that to you (people from the United States) you have to believe that. But I recommend you check in other languages and your going to find in all the rest of the world American continent is considered like a single continent, By eample check the wikipedia article AMERICA in Spanish or Italian or French. Chau.jmko22 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.131.87 (talk)


 * As others have said above, the nearly universal meaning of "North America" in the US includes Mexico, Central America, and most of the Caribbean, so your theory about the division being somehow racially motivated doesn't really work. Also, as this is the Wikipedia for the English language, what other languages do or do not call something doesn't really matter. (An example of this would be the present name for the Falkland Islands or the spelling of Brazil on the English Wikipedia.) Third, I find it a bit inconsistent of the Spanish Wikipedia to call North America a sub-continent and Africa a continent. Finally, there's the crust of the planet Earth to consider. Alexius  Horatius 08:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, we should use the division customary in the Anglophone world. As you point out, other cultures may divide things differently, but this is not particularly relevant.  However, as for the examples of the French and Italian Wikipedias, the French article on North America calls it a continent or subcontinent, "selon le point de vue", and the Italian article states that it is a continent. Spacepotato (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm British and anglophone and also to me North America is not a continent. Anyone with a decent standard of education and geography would also agree.  There is only one continent in the region and that is called America.  North and South America are regions of that continent created to politically and culturally separate the 'English' (and French) parts from the 'Spanish' (and Portugese) parts.  Some Americans even believe that Mexico, Honduras, etc. aren't part of North America just because they're poorer or don't speak English.  But then again  the USA isn't exactly known for its high educational standards, is it?--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should take a look at a map. Despite your axe-grinding, North America is a continent. Africa is far more connected to Eurasia than North America is to South America, yet Africa is clearly a continent. Africa's physical connection to Eurasia is wider than North America's connection to South America. There is only a very short gap between Africa and Gibraltar, and there is a long stretch of the Mediterranean Sea where Africa is close to Eurasia, and even closer on the Red Sea. No one believes that the Spanish or Portuguese speaking people are not part of the continent because they are poorer or don't speak English. It's just a fact of geography.--RLent (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... The lead sentence of the Continent article reads, "A continent is one of several large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with seven regions commonly regarded as continents – they are (from largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.", citing Continent at Britannica.com. Nationmaster.com, listing the percentage of adult population (aged 25-64) educated till tertiary level (year 2000), lists the U.S. as #2 at 42%, and the UK at #12 at 26%, citing OECD Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2003  as their source (more recent info is probably available here). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (To Xania) It would seem the National Geographic Society does not possess a "decent standard of education and geography", as every atlas I've seen from them treats NA as a separate continent. (Same goes for Britannica...) Alexius  Horatius  01:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (also to Xania) Wikipedia is not the place for elitist comments disparaging other nationalities. From your comments on other talk pages to the effect that Americans are destroying the world it would seem you have a violent bias against Americans which is utterly inappropriate for wikipedia. (Am I right in guessing you have a Serbian background, and your antipathy towards Americans derives from US policy in Kosovo? Just a guess.) You are clearly ignorant of American attitudes towards Mexico, that it isn't part of North America. Actually it is Europeans who tend to view Mexico that way, mixing up Mexico with Central America. Walterego (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why U.S.A Point??
did you mean Americans? or United Statesians? Europeans are not tending to view Mexico that way, unfortunately Hollywood's movies are doing a good job with the world, with uneducated people in the world. But Hollywood cannot change the reality in the world, the history, the memories. 1.- Americans = only USA citizens? (false)      = United Statesian (true) 2.- North Americas = only U.S citizens? (false) = Canadians, United Statesians, Mexicans (true) 3.- North America = USA & Canada? (false)       = Canada, USA, Mexico (true) 4.- The Americas (true)                         = Even in ancient Mexico, it was called as "America" to Mexico. 5.- America = USA? (false)                      = "United States OF America (refering continent)" (true)

Examples; 1.- Mexico is not the official name 2.- United "Mexican" States are "Mexicans". 3.- United "American" States THEN you'll be "Americans". ......................unfortunately USA is "United States" of America. You'll be "United Statesian" English language is English language everywhere. Don't confused with Northern America.--TownDown How's it going? 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Towndown, the term "United Statsian" does not exist. The phrase doesn't make any sense. If you refer to Americans as "United Statians" then people are going to look at you strangely. It would be like referring to a British person as a "United Kingdomian", that would be a nonsense word (Even though the British Isles include Ireland also). The proper term should be "United States Of America-ian", but that's even worse. So the only possibility is to shorten it to American, which makes sense because people from the Americas but not the USA are called either "North Americans" (or in spanish Norteamericanos) or "South Americans" (Sudamericanos). There is no single continent of "America" (because the two continents are plural and called the Americas).Walterego (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your second point, I assure you virtually nobody in the USA (especially Hollywood/L.A.) thinks that Mexico is in Central America. However I have recently discovered that a lot of Europeans think that Mexico is in Central America. For example see the quoted definition from Fowler's guide to (British) English, which asserts that Mexico is in central america. This is the reason I have argued so strenuously that Fowler's does not accurately reflect the variety of American English.Walterego (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since who?, that's I call Hollywood Brainwashing, unfortunately the true is outside, U.S or Hollywood can't change it. Well British is completely correct as United Statesian in English language, if people are going to look at me strangely it is because Hollywood Brainwashing and false education in USA. No all Europeans think that Mexico is in C.A, you shouldn't talk in general about it, I have a lot of friends mainly from France or Italy and they never thought that, Hollywood thinks that. As you can see, there is a world waiting for you to be discovered, you need to travel, don't read books about it, those kind of books are written by the same people who thinks that U.S is a "great" country or the center of the world. --TownDown How's it going? 14:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From where do you get the idea that "Hollywood" thinks that Mexico is in Central America? I've never seen a USA film do that, & I see a lot of movies. I take issue with your use of the made-up phrase "United statsian", but understand that I am not arguing with you about Mexico in Central America. I don't think Mexico is in Central America, neither do people in "Hollywood" or the USA. Secondly you shouldn't assume that I haven't traveled, I've been to Fance, Italy, and Europe many times, and I also have friends and relatives in Europe, perhaps as many as you do. You say that I "need to travel", and yet you yourself are making a very inaccurate assumption about Americans in general (namely thinking that Americans consider Mexico to be in C.A., when actually they don't). Lastly, it is a myth that Americans consider the USA to be the center of the world, if anyone tends to do that, it is often Europeans (though not all Europeans I realize). For example look at how the British publication Fowler's and the UN (which tends to be Euro-centric) which label Mexico as being in C.A., not the US entities.Walterego (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse me to make a very inaccurate assumption about Americans or United Statesians . You can be reported.
 * You shouldn't assume that you have more friends than me, and please you should read many times what I wrote to understand about Hollywood Brainwashing, well, guess what?, I'm not living in Mexico, guess what?, I'm living in France, oui je parle français!. Mexico is North America, not matter if people liked it or not. That's why Mexico is here and not here, or even here. --TownDown How's it going? 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys calm down. I can assure you both that you agree in the main issue here: Mexico is not part of Central America. So please relax. We need to focus in this. TownDown, I gently ask you to not revert the current status of the page regarding usage section, since again, this is somehow a consensus long awaited. Both Walterego and I (and many more) have struggle for years for a real representation of the North American thinking about North America (lol). Mexico is not part of Central America. We all agree with that. So, please, chill out guys.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR and more
North America is the northern continent of the Americas of the Americas continent, according to the United Nations statistics division. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.--TownDown How's it going? 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hola TownDown. That is not OR. There are several continental models. The most extended in the English speaking world seems to the the one in which America is considered two separated continents. Also be aware that the geographic model by the UN was divised for "statistical purposes only" and in that model Mexico is (oddly) placed in Central America. Northern America comprises the US and Canada only. Northern America is not the same that North America. Saludos.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To Fowler's Modern English Usage as reference??? is WP:NOR.
 * Burchfield, R. W., ed. 2004. "America." Fowler's Modern English Usage (ISBN 0-19-861021-1) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 48 -- quotation reads: "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. Countries to the south of the United States are described as being in Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) or South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.)"; see also: McArthur, Tom. 1992. "North American." The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ISBN 0-19-214183-X) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 707. .--TownDown How's it going? 18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is the book Fowler's Modern English Usage (ISBN 0-19-861021-1.) So, it's not original research. Spacepotato (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

. --TownDown How's it going? 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, see my reply above. Spacepotato (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * , the says...
 * Burchfield, R. W., ed. 2004. America............ Fowler's Modern English Usage.....(ISBN 0-19-861021-1) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 48 -- quotation reads: "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. Countries to the south of the United States are described as being in Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) or South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.)"; see also: McArthur, Tom. 1992. "North American." The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ISBN 0-19-214183-X) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 707..
 * An external link is needed . --TownDown How's it going? 01:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the reference is to the book, not a Wikipedia article. Spacepotato (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This quotation will be evaluated. Regards--TownDown How's it going? 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Central North America
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)


 * More divisions? No, we should not. Not relevant.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  12:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the countries are unclassified is because there isn't any consensus on what countries constitute each "region", besides, those "regions" that you mention are mostly unused, I can't think of the last time I heard in the news "Earthquake strikes in Central North America" or something like that. Supaman89 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual History
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)

Maps for continents - proposal
Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example: 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:
 * Europe (current)
 * Asia (former)
 * South America (current)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * Requests submitted. I'd like to reiterate that I have no intention of enforcing these new maps on articles - if there is any objection I'll understand. My intent here is to make uniformity possible, not to enforce it. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice map! Good job.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

scope
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There is no source that considers the North American continent to "end" at the southern US border. That "definition" simply does not exist.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * South America 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)
 * 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)

In political uses there is no ultimately correct or standard definition for North America. So ... this article should simply stress that ambiguity in the introduction Just continue to give examples of the variations used by whoever and end this debate. In geo uses it should also be clarified in the intro before stating area stats and etc.. (By way of example, the US Department of Energy includes Mexico, Bermuda, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Canada, Greenland, and US, which people should be aware of when comparing their reports to UN reports. News articles are the biggest problem since journalists seldom clarify.)   172.129.181.83 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From geological and historical points of views, Central America should not be included in what you call North America. First of all, parts of Central America were the last to emerge from the ocean. Second, when the Spanish conquistadors came, they called Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica –Central America, opposed to what is North America as is defined by NAFTA. Panama and Belize are in a gray area, but together they form the isthmus. Please review the wikipedia web page that refers to América del Norte in Spanish  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOSE LEITON (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Is it in the Western Hemisphere?
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)
 * Anyone with 'rights' want to consider editing this? It appears valid.Tatumstevens (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla
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)
 * I've removed these areas from the North America page. See here for reasons. Rennell435 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Central America not is North America
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)
 * This article is including Central America in the definition of North America. Zazaban (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


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

Well I see the opinions were left a long time ago but Central America is a region of the continent called North America under the continental model that splits America in north and south. When the continent is considered only one, Central America is a subcontinent. In both models it contains the same countries so I don't see any problem with it being included also here and in the article Central America. Guate-man (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)