Talk:Latin America

Moai pictures

I removed the Moais. Easter Island is in Polynesia, clearly not a part of the American contintent. It wouldn't make any sense to have a picture of them in the Latin America article, just like it would't make sense to have a picture of Guam in the North America article or a picture of French Guyana in the article about Europe. Discuss.

European Population 2

In the section "Absolute numbers", Absolute numbers means: How many people exactly? and calculating the percentage of the White population of Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela, the results are:

Brazil Population: 190,010,647 Percentage of White Population: 53.7% Total White Population: 102,035,717,439

Mexico Population: 108,700,891 Percentage of White Population: 15.5% Total White Population: 16,848,638,105

Venezuela Population: 26,023,528 Percentage of White Population: 21.0% Total White Population: 5,464,940,88

Uruguay Population: 3,460,607 Percentage of White Population: 94.5% Total White Population: 3,270,273,615

So, in the caucasians section reffering to absolute numbers (not to the percentage), the right order is the following; Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 October, 2008 (UTC)

Black Nicaraguans

This article is incorrect in that it states Nicaragua has 0% black people. This is not true, about 10% of Nicaragua's population is black, it has the most black people(in terms of numbers not percentages) of any Central American country.

Origin of "Latin"

Observation: The article currently implies that the term "Latin" in the name comes from the fact that these regions speak languages that are derived from Latin. This is not really true. The term "Latin" has long been used as an alias for "Catholic". "Latin America" was coined as a way to distinguish Catholic countries from Protestant ones. Today, of course, those distinctions are less meaningful as the countries are now more secular and the old Catholic/Protestant rivalries are not so significant anymore.

Seems to me this is worth discussing at least a bit.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It is true, of course, that the regions of Europe that are traditionally Roman Catholic are by and large former provinces of the Roman Empire whose current official language is a dialect of Latin. This is not a coincidence either. But it is still not the reason their former American colonies were called "Latin". --Mcorazao (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that leaves Poland, Ireland, and some stretchs of Germany and the former Austro-Hungarian empire in an interesting situation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cid Cabreador (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest continental demographic table entry

I suggest we also include totals for "South America" and "Latin America" in the table in the demographics section. This apparently could be done by simply adding up numbers since we seem to have all the countries on hand. K. the Surveyor (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we are missing some countries in Latin America, mostly in the Caribbean. I think a better division would therefore be Central America and South America. There is an HTML comment stating that the table must not be modified without achieving talk page consensus, so I am proposing adding rows for Central and South America, with an asterisk indicating that totals only come from the countries listed, and so small countries that are omitted do not contribute. This would appear to be justifiable under WP:CALC. K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I hope you saw that Latin America has 4 main divisions: North America, Central America, Caribbean and South America. We won't divide it to CA and SA. Mexico and the Caribbean don't belong to either region. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing about this, since the below proposal is better anyway. K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed map

I'm trying to find a way to summarize the ethnicity data so that any larger geographic patterns stand out (see above section). It occurs to me that making a map would increase the detail available to users beyond what was proposed above. In fact, a map for each ethnicity makes sense, where white regions correspond to zero and black regions correspond to 100%. This would probably require its own separate page, but a link can be placed in the section. Is this acceptable? K. the Surveyor (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is acceptable. You could make a animated map so you don't have to post a map for every ethnicity. I could help with that. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an animated map is an excellent idea here. I may not get the chance to create one myself for the next month due to being busy. If you want to add it before then, go ahead. K. the Surveyor (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Who did change the data I had written?

I had just written some extra data to the page and then I see and they disappeared! Who did delete it? In that case, Why didn't I receive an apologize or a message or something? There was ANYTHING wrong with the Stats...

CAN ANYONE ANSWER TO ME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnahueeel (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Xnahueeel (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Xnahueeel

Well, you seem to be operating in good faith, and you did ask nicely. User Moxy removed it ([1]). Moxy's a good editor, so the reason must have been a good one. SamEV (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Racial Table nned to be corrected

The Racial Table needs to be corrected, receiving new data and including the pardo category, which means someone descendent of an indefinite mix of europeans, indians and africans, this is an official classification in Brazil and needs to be portrayed. I will do these changes soon, someone would like to oppose? --CEBR (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Latinoamérica

A single editor is repeatedly inserting fringe comments at the lede about "América Latina/Latinoamérica" not being in common use in Spanish and Portuguese, or stating that Ibero-America is a more precise term for Latin America in those same languages.

His only purpoted source is the prestigious Royal Spanish Academy. What does RAE says?:

Latinoamérica. Nombre que engloba el conjunto de países del continente americano en los que se hablan lenguas derivadas del latín (español, portugués y francés), en oposición a la América de habla inglesa: «El cálculo [...] de sujetos potenciales del derecho indígena colectivo es por ahora imposible, particularmente en Latinoamérica. En Canadá y Estados Unidos hay sistemas más formalizados de registro público» (Clavero Derecho [Méx. 1994]). Es igualmente correcta la denominación América Latina. Para referirse exclusivamente a los países de lengua española es más propio usar el término específico Hispanoamérica (→ Hispanoamérica) o, si se incluye Brasil, país de habla portuguesa, el término Iberoamérica (→ Iberoamérica). Debe escribirse siempre en una sola palabra, de modo que no son correctas grafías como Latino América o Latino-América. Su gentilicio es latinoamericano.

Iberoamérica. Nombre que recibe el conjunto de países americanos que formaron parte de los reinos de España y Portugal: «Don Juan Carlos destacó ayer, en la inauguración de la II Conferencia de Justicia Constitucional de Iberoamérica, Portugal y España, que los tribunales constitucionales aseguran la primacía de la Constitución» (País [Esp.] 28.1.98). No debe usarse para referirse exclusivamente a los países americanos de lengua española, caso en que se debe emplear el término Hispanoamérica (→ Hispanoamérica). Su gentilicio, iberoamericano, se refiere normalmente solo a lo perteneciente o relativo a Iberoamérica, esto es, a los países americanos de lengua española y portuguesa: «Los tiros del festival van, decididamente, por la música española, portuguesa e iberoamericana» (Abc [Esp.] 16.8.96); pero en ocasiones incluye también en su designación lo perteneciente o relativo a España y Portugal: «José Hierro obtuvo ayer el IV premio Reina Sofía de poesía iberoamericana» (Vanguardia [Esp.] 2.6.95).

This is: it defines Latinoamérica identically to what this article states in the lede (: regions of the Americas where Spanish, Portuguese and French are primarily spoken); while defining Iberoamérica exactly as the WP Ibero-America article defines it (: former American colonies of Spain and Portugal).

Please, find some reliable source to your claims and try to reach consensus here, before reinserting your unsupported fringe claims. Thanks. --IANVS (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Iberoamérica

Introduced reference to Ibero-America, pertinent as the correct term in formal Spanish, as established by the Real Academia Española for the most widely use definition of Latin America -i.e.: countries where Spanish or Portuguese is spoken-, to the extent that with the exception of the initial definition, the rest of the article talks exclusively about Ibero-America (there is no inclusion in maps, data, or narratives of major french-speaking regions such as Quebec). El Cid Cabreador (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't realize this article defines Latin America (Latinoamérica), not Ibero-America. These are different concepts. The "most common usage of Latin America" is not up to you to define. Discussions about its uses are already stated in this article. Do you understand this? --IANVS (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed Ibero-America and Latin America are two different concepts. Nobody is denying that.
• Latin America is most commonly used to describe the concept of Ibero-America, excluding French speaking regions such as Quebec. This is stated on the article itself in two places: "Although French-influenced areas of the Americas would include Quebec, this region is rarely considered to be part of Latin America" - "In one sense, Latin America refers to territories in the Americas where the Spanish or Portuguese languages prevail"
• The common usage of Latin America as "territories in the Americas where the Spanish or Portuguese languages prevail" is incorrect, as indicated by your quotes from RAE. This is pertinent to the uses of the term and thus should be included on the discussions thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cid Cabreador (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The most common definition is not the entirety of the definitions. The discussion about it belongs to the "definition" section, not to the lede. Why? Because the concept of Latin America exists in Spanish independently of the concept of Ibero-America. And, regardless of RAE, both usages also vary in Spanish. --IANVS (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but to be correct in Spanish it is required compliance with RAE, not wir IANVS

I'm pleased that you agree on the most common definition topic.

I agree that it is not the entirety of definitions - I've never questioned that.

Definition on bullet point 1 is incorrect in Spanish. This needs to be stated.El Cid Cabreador (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RAE is the authoritative definition. But an encycolpedia does not only refer to authoritative definitions, it takes into account common usage. The disagreement over the bullet 1 definition is already stated. BTW, I don't know what is the most common usage in English. It may be the bullet 2 one. I only stated that a most common definition does not annul the rest of them. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thus you acknowlege again said definition is commonly used - thank you.

No, I said I don't know which definition is the most commonly used. As far as the article goes, all 3 definitions are in common use. --IANVS (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, common usage definitions need to be reflected. But also needs to be reflected whether they are correct or not.El Cid Cabreador (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The concept of a "correct" definition (aside for common usages) is highly debatable for Spanish. Regading the English language, it is almost irrelevant. --IANVS (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The concept of a "correct" definition in Spanish IS compliance with RAE. The concept of a "correct" definition in Spanish is not compliance with ianvs.

Recently, RAE changed its approach, when incluiding "Americanisms" and regionalisms. These are not anymore "deviated" meanings from a standard "correct" definition. When including Americanisms, for example, RAE recognises that the common usage precede authoritative definitions. Previous RAE approach was indeed highly contested in the past. But this is not a talk page on RAE. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article is inconsistent. Most of the article talks about the concept of Ibero-America, not Latin America. If the concept of Latin America is defined as Romance-speaking regions in the Americas, why is Quebec constantly excluded?El Cid Cabreador (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is quite underdeveloped, you are right. It certainly needs to be improved. But it is not an article on Ibero-America. --IANVS (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is not an article on Ibero-America. However, the content is.

A clarification may apply, but definitely that's not for tonight - Cheers. El Cid Cabreador (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Racial/Ethnic statistics

I think it is a huge mistake to build the section on ethnicity on the idea of genetically based racial categories. Genetic categories do not reflect the way the concepts of mestizo, pardo, indigena etc. are used in contemporary Latin America but are reifying the racial ideology of the castas system which dfidn't even matchup with tthe facts when it was in use during the colonies. The argument over statistics is ridiculous and baseless since all purported statistics of category membership are basically impressionistic ideological tools. Membership of both racial and ethnic categories is in fact fluid and situational and any result is largely an artefact of the questionaaire design it self. There is a rather large literature about the inherent unreliability of those kind of census data -. I'd recommend scrapping the statistics all together and moving away from the outdated racial model of ethnicity. Using it makes wikipedia look stupid. Oh, and CIA world factbook is not a reliable source for anything at all, much less anything in the domain of social science.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My ability to understand the situation is limited by not being able to read the Spanish source from which the racial composition data is drawn. However assuming that the source is reputable and scholarly, it does not matter if anyone thinks it contains "impressionistic ideological tools." Of course the results depend on the questionnaire but that doesn't matter either. There are many ways to describe a person's face but that fact does not somehow render such descriptions meaningless or irrelevant. If we are supposed to move away from the "outdated racial model of ethnicity," what is the replacement and where are the sources and statistics? And the Factbook is a widely used source and is certainly presumed reliable enough for inclusion. Red Bulls Fan (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Red Bulls Fan.

We're not asked to provide the holy truth. We're simply asked to provide info from reliable sources that can be verified by Wikipedia's readers.

If Maunus thinks that the content lacks balance, then he should add balancing material. SamEV (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Using and comparing statistics from many different sources without taking into account or even mentioning the criteria used by those sources to handle and gather the data is reckless and sloppy. It is also WP:SYNTH. It gives the reader the false belief of having been informed while in fact he has not. The content doesn't lack balance - it lacks academic integrity. It is an attempt of comparison between statistics that are not comparable. And worse it isn't even conscious of that fact. You can't read the Lizcano source - then how can you even think of using it? And yes it matters if someone thinks it contains impressionistic data and uses ideologically motivated classification systems - if the ones who think so are the scholars who deal with this professionally and publish in academic source. And it is. There is an immense literature on this subject some of which is used in the article about Race in Brazil and in Mexican people#Race and ethnicity. Read those if you want the academic perspective. I am taking the CIA factbook to the reliable sources board - its use is much too pervasive throughout wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Several of the population breakdowns are not supported by either the CIA factbook or the Lizcano source, or any of the cites given in note 27. They are basically invented numbers pulled out of the air.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You removed the reference needed tags, but didn't actually adress the issues of Synth, of Refernces not being verifiable because they are unspecific and lack page numbers or simply do not give an actual reference. I will have to place a disputed tag on the whole article untill this issue is adressed instead of dismissed.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article needs the cleanup tag untill the issues with the race and ethnicity section has been taken care off. It is based on non-scholarly sources and fringe sources like Lizcano and completely ignoring the huge body of scholarship on race and ethnicity in LA. It ignores all of the problems there exist with making cross-national comparisons between census data, statistics and ethnic categories. It presents and compares different styatistics in a way that can only be characterized as academically irresponsible and illegal WP:SYNTHesis. Op top it has many sections that are not yet written and does not conform to basic WP:MOS. I agree this is an important topic - this article in no way does it justics and it urgently needs a cleanup and a to be completed.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

El Salvador

The ethnic groups in El Salvador are wrong, the area is 90% Mestizo 9% White and 1% American Indian according to the countries national figures and the US as well [2]

I will change it if I get no response thank you. House1090 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Any set of random numbers is as good as any other.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want there to be a misunderstanding, the figures in the source I'm using are official. House1090 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have information on how the ethnic categories are defined in the study and how the census was carried out I think it would be a huge improvement if you could include that in a footnote.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you saying the US government source is not official (no sarcasm intended)? The CIA has the same numbers as well. House1090 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that if you have the numbers from a source that specifies how they got the number how they define the different categories that would make them much more valuable. I don't care about their degree of officialness or correspondence with the CIA's numbers. You can introduce numbers as much as you like (backed with sources) - but the numbers won't actually be meaningful to anyone before we have numbers that define what it is they are counting and tell us how they did the counting.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but the current source does not do that either. House1090 (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's exactly why I say it would be a huge improvement.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will be looking into that. House1090 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Poverty

I added more information about the origins of poverty in Latin America and its implications for the region. I also added more information about the welfare programs, how they workd and the impact they have had —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramacu (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

UN World Urbanization Prospects

The UN report provides the following ranking for Latin American cities:

Nº.	Metropolitan area	Country	Pop. UN	Official population	Ref
1	São Paulo	Brazil	20.262.000	18.730.570	Censo IBGE 2010
2	México, D.F.	Mexico	19.319.000	19.239.910	Conteo 2005
3	Buenos Aires	Argentina	12.988.000	12.548.638	Est INDEC 30-06-2009
4	Río de Janeiro	Brazil	11.950.000	10.977.035	Censo IBGE 2010
5	Lima	Peru	8.769.000	8.482.619	Censo 2007
6	Bogotá	Colombia	8.262.000	8.328.163	Est DANE 30-06-2009
7	Santiago	Chile	5.883.000	5.428.590	INE 2005
8	Belo Horizonte	Brazil	5.852.000	5.031.438	Est IGBE 2008
9	Guadalajara	Mexico	4.402.000	4.095.853	Conteo 2005
10	Porto Alegre	Brazil	4.092.000	3.889.850	Censo IBGE 2010

The issue that I have with this is that for some cities the sources are old like 2005 and some are new like 2010, so there will be some discrepancies; Data when compared and ranked should always be for the same year. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The current list in the article reflects statistics from one source only (the same as in the article List of Metropolitan Areas) and from the same year. It is the best solution and the issue was already discussed. Sadly some brazilians want Sao Paulo to be listed first, so they try to change this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Important notice
User Maxpana3 introduced the same changes that this "anonymous IP" is trying to introduce. They are the same person. Maxpana is just "hidding" behind the anomymous IP to avoid scrutinity, because his changes were rejected months ago.

• Maxpana3 edits months ago in Polanco [3] and Latin America [4].
• IP 200.125.16.14 recent edits in Polanco [5] and Latin America [6].
• Then Maxpana3 reverts my edits to the IP's edit, today [7].

The link between the IP and Maxpana are very clear. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No matter what has been discussed, only interested in official references it provides.--200.125.16.14 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)