Talk:Northern America (North America)

Article Title

This terminology (Northern America) seems to have a common usage with different meanings such as [1]. I think that it is a confusing article name. hydnjo talk 03:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed there is a conflict here. The U.S. Census[2] defines it as what the article says, therefore I wrote that theory. This article ought to be split between definitions. --Lan56 03:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I get really amazed by the confusion certain people create when it comes to America. It's not difficult: America is a continent (New World) and can be divided in three physical regions: North America (including Mexico!), Central America (including the Caribbean), and South America. However it can also be divided in two cultural regions: Anglo-Saxon America (roughly speaking Canada, USA and the Caribbean) and Latin America (Mexico, insular Central America and South America). Of course, terminolgies may be created, like asian tigers or the BRICs, but Norhtern America as described in this article is an invention that nobody else seems to use (also because it's unnecessary); I also never heard of Middle America, like I never heard of Middle Europe (but surely someone can invent it and start to spread). But in essence, America is one. Just like Europe is one, Asia is one, Africa is one. America is not a country. It happens that the USA have the term America in its name, but ambiguity should be avoided by not using the word America in reference to the country, or Americans in reference to people form the USA (the most correct is US citzen). It is also not acurate to say that Mexicans are not north americans. US citzens are Americans; likewise, Colombians and Brazilians are also Americans (Germans are European, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.91 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed redirect into article

Hello! Since the term Northern America has clear usage distinct from North America, e.g., by the UN when classifying regions, I recently changed this redirect into an article (again). Feel free to enhance it or to build in more regarding possible ambiguity of the term. E Pluribus Anthony 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. You are using -"ern" on a map to substantiate a difference?[3] --Categorizer 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be merged and redirected into North America as was before you undid it. You can explain the distinctions touted by the UN's POV in North America. --Categorizer 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Other alternative for redirect would be "The American State of Canada", "Canada became a Permanent Observer at the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1972, and then joined as the 33rd Member State on January 8, 1990." (Government of Canada) http://www.international.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/750/around/international/aroas-en.asp

and "The Organization of American States" http://www.oas.org Intuitionz 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• You've brought this up in two places now, but it's hard to see what you're getting at. There's no American state of Canada, Canada's a seperate country from America. Beyond that, the OAS is basically just a club (a club the Americans use to bash the rest of the hemisphere, but I digress) - Northern American is a U.N. subregion - if you wanted to try to set up a disambig to like Minnesota and Wisconsin, maybe. Canada wouldn't make any sense at all. WilyD 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was a typo.. What I mean't was a redirect to The Canadian Americas. Intuitionz 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is Hawaii?

Cut from article:

Geopolitically, Hawaii – a U.S. state located in the Pacific Ocean – is often considered a part of North America. Due to its distant location, geophysically it is more commonly included with the other territories of Oceania.

I'm not familiar with the term "geopolitically". And I've never heard of Hawaii as part of "Northern America" or North America. Maps of the United States show it as an inset, but Americans don't generally think of Hawaii as being in the same continent as the "lower 48". Is this part of the new UN subregion scheme?

Maybe we should say:

Although Hawaii is a U.S. state, it is located in the center of Pacific Ocean and is there not considered a part of Northern America. Due to its distant location, geophysically it is more commonly included with the other territories of Oceania.

I know the U.N. wants to de-emphasize the USA's connection to "America", but let's not get absurd about it. --Uncle Ed 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the above but have tweaked it. Geopolitics, or political geography, is a subfield of human geography that deals with political entities, borders, domains, and the like. Physical geography or physio(geo)graphy deals with physical features etc.

Apropos, it is important to note this exception/distinction: if anything, the UN is entrenching the connection between Hawaii and the U.S., since they do not list Hawaii seperately in its list of regions/territories. Geopolitically, Hawaii – a U.S. state – is of the USA in North(ern) America. Physiographically and even culturally, though, the Hawaiian Islands (the archipelago) are frequently included in Polynesia, a subregion of Oceania (which is not generally reckoned as a 'continent' but a region). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you say "Politically, Hawaii is of Northern America". Where did you get that idea? It is not correct. Politically, Hawaii is of the United States of America. As far as geographical location, you are correct about Polynesia. --Categorizer 06:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked my comment above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The UN has chosen to group all the (permanently inhabited) geopolitical entities of the world into clusters of entities, one of which it has chosen to name "Northern America". These UN subregions follow political borders, and so, as a curious consequence, remote parts of the UN subregions "Northern America" and "South America" are generally not associated with the continents of North America and South America. Even more conspicuously, UN subregion "Eastern Europe" is primarily located between China and the North Pole. Anyone is free to argue against such an arbitrary grouping of countries and territories (or just their UN names). But if Wikipedia is to reflect actual usage, then it has been thouroughly demonstrated that "Northern America" is a term that is in use and which has a meaning distinct from North America, which generally refers to the landmass and associated islands (associated geophysically, that is). The equation is this: Hawaii is in the United States which in turn places it in "Northern America" (though arguably not in North America). For further nitpickings, compare which of the UN subregions Indonesia, Chile and Iceland are placed in. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 09:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

going to redirect this to North America

inventing your own continents are you now?--205.188.116.200 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Read above – any attempts to redirect will be reversed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Location of Mexico

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

why isn't there a distinction up front?

this u.n. designation is new to me, and before i read this page i took it for a redundant article that needed merging! i'm not disputing its existence, but this article surely needs a sentence or clause in the first paragraph that immediately distinguishes northern america from north america. something as simple as "northern america, a u.n. geographical designation that is distinct from the continental designation of north america..." as google is my witness, "northern america" (in quotations as search term) turns up 1,320,000 hits, whereas "north america" turns up 191,000,000 hits, and so northern america as it stands is confusing for the lay person. -- Denstat 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Possibly, but I think the first sentence is clear regarding this (Northern America...region (of) North America...continent). Also, I believe the designation of Northern America is not just used by the UN. In efforts to improve, perhaps a glance at Southern Africa (as compared to South Africa) would be helpful? Cogito ergo sumo 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

hello back to you! i did look at the examples you mention, but isn't the suggested comparison somewhat different, as South Africa is the name of a country? i also tried to find both South America and Southern America articles because that might be a closer example, but only the former exists. i guess the u.n. geopolitical articles here are not complete. it seems to me that making a clear distinction immediately would clarify what northern america is not, and be helpful for people who don't have english as a mother tongue. also, the information and graphics in the article look similar enough to the north america article so that more precision in the introduction could be beneficial. thanks. -- Denstat 03:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your comments. Yes, the comparison is somewhat different but I couldn't think of another: I cited that example because the article Southern Africa clearly distinguishes between the region and eponymous state. Similarly, I think Southern America is synonymous with South America (redirect?) and the former is not abundantly used.

That being said, take a crack at revising this article's lead ... just remember the term isn't just used by the UN. ;) Cogito ergo sumo 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ok. how's that? clearer to me, but is it still correct? -- Denstat 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

oh well, i see you kept some of it, so my contribution helped somewhat. :) cheers. -- Denstat 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglosaxon America

This article clearly refers to Anglosaxon America, the term Northern America is hardly differento from North America. Furthermore, the distinction between Northern, and North America is clearly socioeconomic. Northern-Aglosaxon America would be the clear oposite to Southern-Latin America. Perhaps both this article and that of Latin America should be changed to those names. (201.114.105.99 16:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Incorrect -- the various terms connote socioeconomic and geographic distinctions. For instance, what of Greenland? Also, there is a difference between Northern America (compared to Middle America/South America) and Anglo-America (as opposed to Latin America), the latter of which is what I think you're getting at. Cogito ergo sumo 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern America / America Septentrional

Also one of the names of the old Mexico. See here: Mexican Congress, the Declaración de la Independencia de América Septentrional (Declaration of the Independence of Northern America). JC 16:40, 29 Agust 2007 (PST)

Interesting: do you have a reliable English reference for this? Corticopia 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, the old Mexican official documents are in Spanish; beside the fact that the translation of "Septentrional" to English is "Northern", and the correct translation of "Northern" to Spanish is "Norteño", also in spanish septentrional is synonymous of Norte , so, the correct translation should be Declaración de la Independencia de América Septentrional (Declaration of the Independence of North America). It was interesting to know how Mexico took once, the name of North America as the official name of the country. JC 18:25, 29 Agust 2007 (PST)

There are numerous websites that provide translations/collections of these sorts of documents, like here. Otherwise, the logic of your translations seems somewhat singular: a similar word exists in French (septentrionale; see 'Definitions' in this article) with particular usage. Similarly, 'middle' and 'central' may also be synonyms in Spanish and English, but the two may mean different things depending on the context: e.g., Middle America/Central America, Middle Africa/Central Africa. My point: if the assertion can be reliably sourced in English, it can be added to the article, to a redirect, etc. Corticopia 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt found yet the english version of the "1st congress of Anahuac" document, but I found this, dunno if this sources are reliable or not, is up to you;
Mexico as Northern America
Mexico as Northern America
Mexico as North America
JC 20:10, 29 Agust 2007 (PST)