Talk:Central America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Central America, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Cities

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

[edit] Disambig

I dont mind a disambig page and a link at the top of the article but I strongly opbkect to the SS Central America being put at the top, it gets in the way, SqueakBox 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would be surprised if there are many readers that arrive at this page when they are searching for the ship. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please bring your point here Morse instead of reverting, SqueakBox 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
SS Central America is a very famous ship for two reasons: and at the time of the disaster it was one of the deadliest ship disasters ever. The second reason is due to its cargo of Californian gold rush gold, worth approx 2 bn US dollars.[1], which gave the ship its nickname "Ship of Gold". The otheruses template is supposed to be at the top of the page and for exactly this reason.--MoRsE 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A disambig page is acceptable though note that Cornwall (disambiguation) fails to mention the ship that has been notably in the headlines of late, SqueakBox 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This disambiguation is not only acceptable but required at this point: it is foolhardy to not have any link from main articles to the lesser-known ship of the same name (e.g., see America (disambiguation)). The disambiguation -- which I created earlier -- should fulfill this function and solve this issue. Anyhow, it's likely that Cornwall hasn't been updated yet merely due to online chaos. :) Corticopia 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But equally mentioning this US ship in the opening on Central America, which has nothing to do with the US, was unacceptabl;e, SqueakBox
I'm not arguing with that, hence the necessity for a disambiguation. :) Corticopia 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population Table

I recently added a table that the lists the populations of each country. In the process of preparing the table I discovered that the data in List of countries by population is ofen different than the data listed on the pages for each country. The talk page at the list article has a lengthy discussion regarding the proper source for the data. The outcome was a recommendation to use the UN figures from the 2004 report World Population Prospects (which provides estimates for July 1, 2005). That is the source of the data in this table. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No real argument, but I've (re-)added context regarding Belize and Panama which (according to some) may not be included in the region for various reasons. Please copyedit. :) Corticopia 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Prep

A proposal has been made at WikiProject Central America to make this article the first collaboration for the project. In preparation for that event, I have moved discussion content from previous years to an archive page following the procedure described at WP:ARCHIVE. If you feel that this article should or should not be the first focal point for the project, please join the discussion. I realize that some important discussions have been moved to the archive. Please refer to that page before starting a new dialog about which countries should be included and/or excluded from this page. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Geography Section

This section should not be confused with geographical, geological or physiographical content. This is the case of the previous paragraph dedicated to Mexico. Verifiable but wrongly placed sentences as "some geographers include the 4 states of Mexico in CA" is geographical content not human geography. Aditionally it was very clear that physiographically some geographers consider that CA starts at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. That information is already included in the proper section. Plus is you check the article Mexico and North America you will find that Mexico is not often geopolitically included in CA (information inserted by user Corticopia in the article Mexico, that now is "confusing" physical geography with human geography in this particular article). It is specially false to claim that geopolitically a part of Mexico is considered CA. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no confusion: there is clearly a list of five Mexican states (political divisions) -- elements of human geography -- that some geographers include in Central America -- which you continually confuse and remove. Other points are not generally in dispute (e.g., commonality), which the current content accommodates. Corticopia 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The mention of the states is not to indicate that geopolitically they are in CA, but only as a geographical reference. Geopolitically no country divide its territory to play in another geopolitical entity. That would be ridiculous and contradictory to geopolitics. I am from Mexico and I know that Mexico as a whole or in part is geopolitically in Central America.
It is important to note that the reference you are citing (Britannica) clearly indicates what is primarily considered Central America, and then as a secondary info, it says that some (not all, not the majority) of geographers also include in the region 5 Mexican states.
Central America. It extends from the southern border of Mexico to the northwestern border of Colombia and from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. It includes Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Some geographers also include five states of Mexico: Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Campeche, Tabasco, and Chiapas.
So, why are you ignoring this important information? However, the main issue here is that the section is about Human Geography not geography alone. This is about some information that is not supoused to be in the Human Geography section. Plus there is a wikipolicy called Be bold in editing. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nothing is being ignored: this first (prevalent) meaning is both prominent and clearly indicated in this article. And nothing is contradictory -- countries are subdivided geopolitically all the time -- that is what a political division (in this case, for Mexico) is. And if (as you say above) you know that Mexico in whole or in part is in Central America (not just geopolitically), then you shouldn't have an issue with the content. Afte all: some of the country was in the prior Federal Republic of Central America, and parallel mentions are also made of Panama and Belize.Lastly , please dont't try to confusebe bold when you seem all to eager to remove cited content continuously to push a viewpoint. Corticopia 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, states in the case of Mexico are geopolitical entities, internal entities. The main clue here is the word internal. Internal geopolitics are very different than international geopolitics. Mexico, as a whole geopolitical entity (country) is not included in CA. And even if the state of Chiapas once was part of the short-lived Central American Republic, that happened in the 19th century. It has nothing to do with nowadays geopolitics. LOL? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? And you seem to glaze over a number of sources that still do include Mexico in Central America -- I am not debating that this is relatively uncommon. However, you continually remove this information and reframe it to push your point of view. Information regarding Mexican states belongs in the section about human geography, not physical geography (as there are no such entities in a physiographic sense, though there are the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the volcanic belt which are mentioned in that section). It is already very clear what is being said -- e.g., "occasionally", which another editor added. And, yes, this is laughable. Corticopia 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That information about the 5 Mexican states is not geopolitical, even if the definition of "state" is geopolitical. It is highly irrational that a country as a whole is "divided" in international geopolitics. No country in the world do that. So, adding the sentence clarifying that Mexico is not frequently listed in CA is important, because, as you said it is relatively uncommon, so it should be properly clarified. Only saying that "ocassionally" is not enough. Articles North America and Mexico clearly indicates that this is uncommon in a very direct language. I just used almos the identical words used in those articles. And I am not removing citations, I add it back. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not making sense. Many countries are divided in international politics: the United States (Alaska, Hawaii), Russia (Europe/Asia), Turkey, Egypt, ... And all have political subdivisions, and some straddle different continents. Your addition clarifies nothing, while you remove information elsewhere, since the point is already clearly made that Mexico is only occasionally included in Central America (e.g., not included at all in current table). And, generally, in moving content nonsensically, the quality of your edits are poor and diminishes the article. Until others weigh in overwhelmingly to support you, I will continue to restore content that survived your surgery without a rumble. Corticopia 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see any point of contention against the fact that several sources still do refer to parts of Mexico as a part of Central America. To say that Mexico has to be wholly or not at all a part of a geopolitical region does not make sense. We're talking about a somewhat loosely-defined region here; that's understood from the start of the article. No one is saying that five subregions of Mexico are part of the UN or some international treaty organization without the rest of the country. Context matters, and it is not at all inconsistent to say that parts of Mexico are historically or ethnically understood to be linked to the region, while politically and geographically the modern nation of Mexico is not. Feeeshboy 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Central Americans do not consider Mexico a part of CA, legally, politically, geographically or in any other way, SqueakBox 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's part of the problem: it's not just about what Central Americans think, but what citations indicate. Corticopia 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont disagree though I think we need cites for what Central Americans think and what Mexicans think as the priority. I will try to get my head round this more later (problems at work!), SqueakBox 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK: please note that this is already the case, with the article giving proportional weight to this perspective -- i.e., Mexico not in table, "occasionally", at the end of the article, relatively brief minor points, with citations. Other recent edits have dulled this point (and confused the issue) or have attempted to remove it completely. Corticopia 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an Usage of the term section, including the English and Spanish usage of Central America, both are the official languages of this region. JC 12:15, 22 February 2007 (PST)

That usage section seems a bit long and redundant, but I don't have a better solution to put forward right now that will satisfy all perspectives. Perhaps someone more expert than I can also add a bit explaining the difference between the term "Central America" and "Mesoamerica?" Feeeshboy 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mesoamerica is a term used in history to describe a particular region of the Americas where important cultures (Aztecs, Mayas, Olmecs, Toltecs) flourished before the arrival of Europeans to this continent. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes: the section is rather redundant and can be improved still, but is somewhat passable for now. I do believe, though, it is begging for someone to consolidate and prune it ... particularly someone who may challenge that the Americas comprise a single continent and/or believe the interpretations regarding usage to be original. Anyhow ... Corticopia 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And yes; also, Mesoamerica literally means "mid(dle of) America" - Mes(o)- + America; it is subsumed by the larger region now sometimes known as Middle America which includes Mexico, the republics of Central America, and (usually) the Caribbean. Corticopia 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to note. The term Mesoamerica is not a direct equivalent to english term "Middle America". Middle America can be referring to "Mesoamerica" (historical term) or to the current use where Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean are included. However I noted that "Mesoamerica" is a very widely used term in english when referring to the historial precolombine cultural region. If you Google "Middle America" you will note that most of the results refer to the second definition. Also there are other definitions. Very confusing term. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are only somewhat correct: the two terms are direct equivalents literally (just look at the etymology for meso-); it is the definitions and currency of the various terms that differ. Nothing else is in dispute, but (through your Google search) you just demonstrated why this prior 'minor' edit (removal without any edit comment,as before) is unjustified. And, as we all know, there are many terms with a variety of meanings and possible confusion -- like America -- and that's why (in Wikipedia) we must cite sources to clarify things. That's life. Corticopia 10:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article I stumbled upon by the OECD entitled OECD Territorial Reviews: The Mesoamerican Region: Southeastern Mexico and Central America. As you can see and as noted beforehand, the term Mesoamerica is still in current use to describe the region (namely the land bridge) ... and in a geopolitical (particularly socioeconomic) sense. Given this, some of the recent content editions in this article and related articles may have to be refactored. Corticopia 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/n/Talk%7ECentral_America_5bd3.html"