Jump to content

Talk:South America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.105.79.231 (talk) at 23:29, 18 November 2009 (→Demographic chart error: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

A Caribbean Table

I think we should add a Caribbean Table that lists Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles, just like there's a Central America Table for Panama. That table would be there to acknowledge the controversy over which continents those islands correspond to. Inkan1969 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continent

North and South America are viewed differently across the globe, not the terms North America and South America, but the concepts. This should be noted in the article. There is no such thing as a relatively uncommon viewpoint, if we have a reliable source that North and South America are considered in a large part of the globe as a single continent, it should be noted. Furthermore, on the same principle that British english should be used on an article about Britain, the idea that America is a big continent encompassing both North and South America should be noted on a region that considers it as such.Chico 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South America, both a continent and a subcontinent

As all of you know, South America is both defined as a continent of the Americas, or as a subcontinent/region of America (single continent).

These are the two major descriptions of South America and both should be equally represented in the main paragraph. Saying SA is only a continent is partial (representing a POV) and it is giving one model more importance. Also South America is defined as a subcontinent in all the South American nations.

So, the introductory paragraph must say SA is both a continent and a subcontinent. Both model are equally valid. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you: I don't necessarily disagree with this, but information must be dealt with equitably, which doesn't mean equally. Per continent, a wealth of English sources define SA as a continent, relatively few have been provided that corroborate other points of view– e.g., subcontinente in Spanish, none regarding it as a 'region' (though I may be missing this). Take a glance at the wording in the 'Usage' section of North America for a possible alternate. Corticopia 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, mind your own words, since you know for a fact, that South America is considered a subcontinent of the Americas, so it is not a "POV". The difference between the article North America and South America is that, in the first, the subcontinent NA doesn't comprise the same territory, so it would be hard to introduce such a introductory paragraph there.
SA as a continent or as a subcontinent, comprises the same territory/land. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always mind my words: everything is a POV. Actually, I don't know it is a subcontinent for a fact: it may be considered a subcontinent in English and I've seen a number of sources indicating it is a subcontinente in Spanish, but I've seen many more (in English) that indicate it is a continent and a few others still that America is a continent (e.g. Olympics). In my opinion, it's your opinion solely that the North American continent and subcontinente are different (e.g., Central America a region of NA in both languages, at least according to Encarta). The scope of the definition can be narrow (Can, US, MX) or broad (Can, US, Mex, CA, WI). Just source your contributions and deal with content equitably and we shouldn't have any problems. :) Corticopia 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, can I assume that you will be applying the same reasoning when you edit es:América del Sur to note that South America is considered to be a continent in English?– Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't see your comment/suggestion earlier. However, I have already added the notion that South America is also considered a continent, in the Spanish article. Go and check the article history. Oh and by the way, it is in the first paragraph.
  • 08:28 1 abr 2007 AlexCovarrubias (Discusión | contribuciones) m (Méx (Noreamérica), Antillas (Centroamérica). Sudamérica, alt también un continente.)

AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, but this changes nothing for this article: even the editor whom you solicited feedback from has indicated that a Spanish reference is "not acceptable" in this context. Every major reliable English publication harks of the current lead; can you provide any that differ? Demonstrate why this/your perspective deserves undue mention upfront– as opposed to the equitable presentation of this notion in the article already (e.g., in the Geography section)– you haven't yet. Corticopia 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of this date– since this discussion became moribund– and after I requested the article be unprotected, the above concerns remain unaddressed. Therefore, a prior, equitable version will be restored until requests are fulfilled that satisfy those concerns or a consensus asserts otherwise. Corticopia 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for souces in English, since the intro was corrected, because it wrongly implied that South America is also considered a sub-continent in English. In that case, sources in English would have been needed. That error was corrected to indicate that "SA is also considered a sub-continent in several non-English speaking countries, where the single American continent is taught". Both POV (America or Americas continents) are almost equally extended, and there's no reason why the intro should not say it is also considered a subcontinent. For example, in the article Oceania, the intro briefly elaborates about it being a continent. Moving the notion of SA being a subcontinent to somewhere else, is also giving undue weight to a very extended version. Since the intro was corrected, and the "concerns" of the only user opposing this are covered, I proceed to revert to the corrected version. Since this notion was introduced in the intro paragraph, nobody opposed. After several weeks, Corticopia decided to revert it. So one must assume, everybody else was OK with it, otherway they would have reverted it. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An English source is needed. This is the English Wikipedia. Also, since it is the English Wikipedia, it doesn't matter so much what other languages consider South America. They have their own Wikipedias. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, just maybe not enough to be in the introduction. But the important point here is that yes, you do need an English source. Kafziel Talk 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/American-Continent. This is reliable, by the way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.223.205 (talk) 18:08, 08 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... and the retort above is replete with logical fallacies. Take Oceania, for example: its introduction notes that it as a region and (sometimes) reckoned as a continent because a number of reliable English sources indicate this (e.g., Atlas of Canada, Collins Atlas). (Take a glance at that article's history, and you'll note that I made precisely this argument there and was instrumental in retaining this tidbit ... and not painlessly.) None have been presented here. And a prior equitable, conciliatory version of this article by my hand– where this viewpoint is given due weight– existed for weeks beforehand (and whereby 'everybody was OK with it' too) before this editor decided to imbalance the intro more recently. Concerns remain unaddressed: please provide reputable English sources that indicate (1) SA is sometimes considered a subcontinent, and (2) when and/or by which constituencies it is considered so. Until these are dealt with, the current version will do. Corticopia 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where is the WP policy that says all sources must be in english????Chico 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know where is the policy that Chico is asking for. Just because something doesn't exist in your own language it doesn't mean that it doesnt exist. If there are no sources in spanish for certain article, Wikipedians can use sources in english. It would be idiotic to deny knowledge to people just because the original source is not in their languages --132.248.59.44 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO policy allows for the POV-pushing and undue weight of recent edits while allowing for C.'s deletionsubstitution of legitimate English citations which indicate something different.[1] Until the requests above are fulfilled to satisfaction or compelled otherwise, the current intro shall stand. Corticopia 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the countries in SA consider America a continent and SA a subcontinent. I think NOT mentioning that in the into paragraph is wrong. Mainly, because it would mean you're not mentining the opinion of the inhabitants of the place the article talks about. I don't see the need for ENGLISH quotes, since what we intend here is to provide as many acurate FACTS as posible. The fact that many MANY countries consider SA a contient, should be present. If all [pick a language] sources implied that europe was realy a subcontinent, it should still be stated that europeans and many others consider that europe is a continent in the [language you picked] wikipedia. It's a dumb exaple, but i guess you get the point. I see no reason why NOT to make mention of it in the article's introduction. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Note

This dispute has been going on forever, I have justified my edits over a thousand times, and I did not remove any information from the article, I added information. Attacks aside, why not I compromise? we leave the intro saying it is a continent, with a content note labeled not continent? explaining the other point of view that sees South America as subcontinent. We explain the whole thing in the content note, in consensus; and the reader can be better informed. How about it? I am going to try to work on the content of the note and post it here. Lets work together, not separate.Chico 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: this dispute will continue until you edit within the norms of Wikipedia policy and procedures. Though I do not dispute other reckonings, every major English reference unambiguously refers to South American as a continent. The reference you added from the International Olympic Committee (no dispute), while deleting two that were present and directly relevant, only indicates that America is a continent (and this is duly noted in the 'continent' article)– while I do not necessarily dispute this, it does not refer to South America as a subcontinent, so this is a misplaced reference. Anyhow, the notion regarding South America's reckoning as a subcontinent is already equitably noted in the 1st sentence of the 'Geography' section; otherwise, I defer to my prior comments. Corticopia 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come again?? What policies have I violated?? By the way, if you really feel that I have violated the "norms of Wikipedia policy and procedures" feel free to open a request for comment on my actions. Please also answer my previous question about which policy indicates for English only sources. Just a reminder, I have not attacked you and I would very much thank you if you were to remain civil.Chico 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator who previously commented on this page, regarding this very issue, indicated the need for English sources that usual editors can verify: if they are not in English, a usual visitor cannot corroborate assertions. In any event, the source you've added only indicates that America is considered a continent (by the IOC), it doesn't indicate South America is a subcontinent. You also added this while removing two other reliable sources referring to South America as a 'continent' (which is ubiquitous in English) in the very first sentence (which is arguably vandalism) and notions of it being a subcontinent are already equitable dealt with in the 'Geography' section, so I suggest you think twice before insinuating anything regarding incivility or what have you. Corticopia 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia in English, therefore, the lead section should define South America as it is done in the English-speaking world: a continent. You cannot ask the Spanish or the Portuguese Wikipedias to define South America as a continent, because that model is not used in the Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking world. Nonetheless, this article already complies with WP:NPOV because it also includes the alternative definitions used in other areas of the world, albeit in the Geography section. All points of view are already included and given their due weight, something that is not done neither in the Spanish nor in the Portuguese Wikipedias. --the Dúnadan 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Mentioning BOTH POV is what's in mind here, not just imposing one or the other. English wikipedia , btw, is NOT for the english-speaking world alone, it's for everyone, and above all, should be acurate and respect the opinions of EVERYONE. NOT reflecting this dispute in the article, just makes it lacking of certain information. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have found a number of sources in English reffering specifically to South America as a subcontinent, but by weight I am satisfied with the current content note. I am going to post the sources on the article.[2] [3] [4] By the way, the google search for South America subcontinent yielded about 1,280,000 results. I am sure more sources could be found on closer inspection. Chico 01:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I need help to cite these I tried to use the cite web template but it resulted in truncating the rest of the article.... Any suggestions to cite the sites?? Chico 01:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, however, am not satisfied– again, please read the policy regarding undue weight. I grant that you've located a number of English sources to corroborate these assertions (namely from the Brazilian Embassy), but these shall not and can't usurp the ubiquitous English reckoning of South America as a continent. Evey major English compendium indicates this. This content is already equitably dealt with in the 'Geography' section, the references of which you removed when placing your content. As well, in opposition to your online count above (which merely appears to search for any instances of those terms), there are 184K instances of 'South American continent' as opposed to just 400 for 'South American subcontinent' - a ratio of 460 to 1. Per WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Until you can demonstrate otherwise ... Corticopia 14:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need to be convinced about the need for a more representative of South America as a subcontinent? I certainly agree that there is no need for it in the intro, but a content note? there are at least half a billion people(in Latin America alone) who agree with the South America is a subcontinent view, I got you English sources so you can verify, I certainly can understand doubts about it, but burying it in the geography section is not due weight, when you talk about a certain theory and there is an opposing theory of prominence(even a english speaker adheres[5]) it should be stated right after. South America as subcontinent is at least a theory held by significant minority (we would still have to count the countries that teach each viewpoint to determine the majority's viewpoint but this is pointless). Chico 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do need to be convinced– after all, this is the English Wikipedia. I disagree that minority notions in English (though perhaps prevalent elsewhere) should be given such prominence in the lead to this article, and your content note seems superfluous and a roundabout way to introduce content that cannot be corroborated. For example, it asserts commonality in Latin America, Latin Europe, and Iran; however, this was merely copied from elsewhere and not one source has been provided to corroborate this assertion. Anyhow, this article is about the landmass, not what this or that constituency may consider it to be– Chomsky, the Brazilian Embassy, and half a billion humanoids notwithstanding, all reputable English publications which define and describe South America (and provided herein) note it as a continent (and even the Chomsky reference notes that twice). And the 'non-English' point of view is certainly not buried in the article, but in the lead to the geography section where it belongs and is referenced to boot ... so do not remove the existing references again. Corticopia 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed this article at this time. The article has a lot of great pictures and covers the broad aspect, so good work there. The main reason for failing this article is the lack of citations. There are several sections that are missing inline citations. Go through the article and make sure to add inline citations to any statements that may be questioned about their verifiability. Once you have addressed this, please look over the rest of the criteria to see if the article is ready to be nominated again. If you disagree with this review, then you can seek an alternate opinion at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't agree about the "great pictures"... three of them are obvious right-wing inclusions. People don't want a free encyclopedia to be bias to the south american red parties. 200.96.167.124 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Infectious Diseases

This classification (which is also found on other pages besides this one) seems to ignore some facts. Yes, Europeans brought these diseases over, but are they "European diseases"? True, they are treated as such in many texts, which often reflects a political bias, but the fact is these diseases originated in Asia or Africa (as did most infectious diseases known to mankind). They were at some point in the distant past brought to Europe, too, prior to being brought to the New World, and undoubtedly decimated European populations when they were. In some cases (such as Bubonic Plague, the "Black Plague" of the Middle Ages) the path they took and the devastation are known. It seems wrong to classify them as European diseases, which implies that the Europeans were some group of especially disease-ridden people, or even that they originated there- I would propose referring to them as simply "infectious diseases" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't refer to the Black Plague as a Chinese infectious disease, or HIV/AIDS as an African infectious disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castellano Americano

Please source the bizarre claim that in English Spanish is known as Castellano Americano, SqueakBox 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples

While I'm sure that they originated in the new world, do Mestizos really belong here? I mean what about the former presidents of Bolivia? I'm sure they weren't considered indigenouse. I mean, certainly if this was so, Evo Morales would not be the first indigenous president. Iamanadam 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've waited several days for a response so that we could reach a general consensus, so I'm going to go ahead and remove Mestizo from the list of Indigenous people. Iamanadam (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have no idea where to put Mestizo, but since it is an ethnic group, I will put it under that heading. Iamanadam (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

south america facts

South America is a continent of the Americas, situated entirely in the Western Hemisphere and mostly in the Southern hemisphere. A small amount of South America is in the Northern Hemisphere. It is bordered on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the north and east by the Atlantic Ocean; North America and the Caribbean Sea lie to the northwest. South America was named in 1507 by cartographers Martin Waldseemüller and Matthias Ringmann after Amerigo Vespucci, who was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not the East Indies, but a New World unknown to Europeans. South America has an area of 17,840,000 square kilometers (6,890,000 sq mi), or almost 3.5% of the Earth's surface. As of 2005, its population was estimated at more than 371,000,000. South America ranks fourth in area (after Asia, Africa, and North America) and fifth in population (after Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America).


Area 17,840,000 km² Population 371,000,000 Countries 12 Dependencies 3


http://www.lizardpoint.com/fun/geoquiz/samericaquiz.html


Major Landforms SOUTH AMERICA

AMAZON BASIN In short, the Amazon Basin (Amazonia) is covered by the largest tropical rain forest in the world, and running through its heart is the Amazon River, and its more than 1,000 tributaries, seven of them more than 1,000 miles in length. Measurable rain falls on an average of 200 days a year, and total rainfall often approaches 100 inches per year. The overall basin drains over 2,700,000 sq. miles, and covers about one-third of the South American landmass. Rising high in the Andes, the river's network irrigates almost half of the continent, and in terms of volume of water discharged into an ocean... it's the largest in the world.

ANDES This toothy-edged, massive mountain system extends from the tip of South America all the way to Panama. It's the source of most major rivers on the continent and is 4,500 miles (7,240 km) in length. It's home to some of the planet's largest volcanoes, and in the far south along the coast of Chile, large ice sheets are commonplace The Andes and its many ranges include dozens of peaks that reach over 20,000 ft., with the highest point being Aconcagua in Argentina, at 22,384 ft. (6,960m).

ATACAMA DESERT Sparsely populated and running high into the Andes of Chile, this somewhat small desert (or plateau) is a cold place and rainfall is very rare.

It's approximately 100 miles wide and 625 miles long. The landscape is totally barren and covered with small borax lakes, lava flow remnants and saline deposits.

BRAZILIAN HIGHLANDS This highland region - about 800 miles in length - runs through the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais, Goias, Bahia and Sao Paulo in southeastern Brazil. The magnificent landscape includes varied mountain ranges, namely the Serra de Mantiquiera, Serra do Paranapiataba, Serra Geral, and Serra do Mar.

The estimated highest point is 7,368 ft (2,245m).

GUIANA HIGHLANDS A geographically stunning part of Planet Earth, over 1,000 miles in length, the Highlands stretch from southern Venezuela across the northern edge of South America to the tip of Brazil.

It consists of a vast plateau, one marked by deep gorges, tropical rain forests, numerous rivers and waterfalls. It's famed for the highest waterfall in the world (Angel Falls) at 3,212 ft (979m) high.

The highest point is Mt. Roraima on the borders of Brazil, Guyana and Venezuela at 9,219 ft (2,810m).

LLANOS This large and very fertile plain, located in eastern and central Colombia, and central and southern Venezuela, is drained by the Orinoco River and its many tributaries. It's approximately 225,000 sq. miles (582,000 sq. km) in size.

PAMPAS Famed for its many cattle ranches, this large plain in the southern part of the continent (in central Argentina) extends for almost 1,000 miles (1,600 km), and covers 294,000 sq. miles (761,460 sq km).

PATAGONIA Located between the Andes and the Atlantic Ocean, and about 1,000 miles in length, Patagonia stretches south from the Rio Negro River in southern Argentina to Tierra del Fuego and the Strait of Magellan. It's mostly rugged, barren land,



Description South America, the planet's 4th largest continent, includes (12) countries and (3) major territories. It contains the massive Amazon River and surrounding basin - the largest tropical rain forest in the world; the toothy-edged Andes Mountains, that stretch the entire length of the continent, and some of the most diverse and spectacular landforms on the planet.

Continent Size: 17,819,000 sq km 6,879,000 sq miles

Percent of Earth's Land: 12%

Population: 379,500,000

Highest Point: Cerro Aconcagua Andes Mountains, Argentina - 22,833 ft (6,959m).

Lowest Point: Peninsula Valdes Argentina coastline -151 ft (-40m) below sea level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somoman (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Catholioc Communities?

Just a quick question. In the history section this is written:

By 2000 BCE many agrarian village catholic communities had been settled throughout the Andes and the surrounding religious regions. Fishing became a widespread practice along the coast which helped to establish fish as a primary source of food. Irrigation systems were also developed at this time, which aided in the rise of an agrarian society.[6]

How can catholic communities settle 2000 years before jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.60.159 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GIF Map

I like the idea of a map that shows the evolution of South America's political boundaries, there are several problems here though:

1) Those boundaries started shifting before accurate cartography, thus they are not known with much precision and because of this, depending on which source you are using the boundaries will look different (sometimes drastically so).

2) The names originate as if from nowhere (no context as to preexisting names, or reasons for changes). Before Colombia, there was Gran Colombia, and before Peru, the entire Spanish colonial holding was the Viceroyalty of Peru.

3) Some boundaries are shifting due to wars, others due to treaties, others merely due to governments finally getting around to establishing the boundaries, as such this map is more confusing than informative.

Again, I love geography and like the idea behind the map, but I think its reach is too broad in this instance, and it should be deleted. Any thoughts? Rafajs77 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I'll delete the reference, based on lack of sources. 190.160.16.145 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

The demographic part is too superficial in my opinion, and has wrong facts. The majority of the population in Peru is not indigenous, they are 38% of the country's population. The text you can read, still about the indigenous people: "and are a significant element in most other former Spanish colonies"... Well, in Uruguay the don't exist, in Argentina they're 1.1% of the population, in Paraguay 0.7%, in Colombia 3.4% and in Venezuela 1%. I think it's reasonable to consider 5% a minimun for "significant". So it's significant in Chile and Ecuador only, not in "in most other". Mestizos... this is a common mistake, not necessarily is a mix of indian with white, any mix can be considered mestizo. East Indians are not the majority in Suriname, they're 37%, the paragraph should make it clear that they're not the majority but consitute the largest single racial group. Going on... The same article sais that creoles are the majority in French Guayana. Creoles in French Guyana are people of African heritage, to say that they form a large part of the population of Venezuela, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador is an absurd since blacks from this countries aren't and should never be called creoles. Now Brazil, "the country with the biggest ethnic diversity" why to say so? Significant numbers of Asians and Amerindians? Each one is 0.4% of Brazil's population. So Peru has a significant population of whites, Amerindians, blacks, mestizos and Asians and is too the most ethnic diverse country of the region, since all those racial groups make more than 2% of Peruvian population. Opinions of the writer ("Brazil is the most diverse") should be kept away from an Encyclopedia article. It's impossible to define arbitrarialy what's the most diverse country. Another mistake is to refer to the population of Brazil as "white, black and mullatoes" the right way would be "whites, blacks and brown", that's the way they appear in the census and "brown" is not the same meaning of mulatto. You can be brown because of beeing half-white half-Amerindian for example. You can be mulatto and claim black in the census. So to say that the bronws in the Brazilian census are mulattos is a mistake. Better would to mention them as mixed-race people.

As you can see, the whole paragraph needs to be cleaned. I think the senction should simply mention that whites are the majority in Argentina, Uruguay and South Brazil, then mention that there are significant population of whites in all the other parts of the Spanish and Portuguese speaking parts of South America. Mention that the whites mainly are descendants of Portugueses in Brazil and Spanish in the Spanish-speaking part, but also many descents of Italians and Germans. Mention that the whites are descendants of settlers and immigrants that came after those countries became indepedent. Mention that the indigenous people are the majority in Bolivia and the Andean parts of Peru and Ecuador, mention also that they're a significant part of Chile's population. Mention that Uruguay is the only country without indigenous population. Mention the most important indigenous ethnic groups: Quechuas, Aymarás, Mapuches, Guaranís... Mention that blacks are a significant part of the population in Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Mention that they're descendants of slaves. I think that's the essential to tell.


I wrote it all because I want to clean up all this "demographics" section, so democratically I'll share my thoughts with you before I do it. (wrote by GustavoCL in 20th April)

Vandalism

I took out vandalism (i.e. "The Dick that they have are very small also includes various islands, many of which belong to countries on the continent").EnochHenderson (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

left-leaning?

Are the presidents listed as left-leaning, left-leaning from a world POV?--82.35.192.193 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is very arguable:

"During the first decade of the 21st century, South American governments have drifted to the political left, with social democratic leaders being elected in Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, and left-populist presidents in Argentina, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela."

who says who is "left-populist" and who is "social democratic"? as far as i know, all this leaders are "social-democratic" since there are no dictatorships in SA. this paragraph shows parciality. should be erased or rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for article

This is not to open any debate on whether South America is a continent separate from North America or subcontinent of a landmass of America, as both concepts are represented in the article; however, I have a few concerns about the sources used, especially the first 2 sources that support South America as a subcontinent of America. (1) The Olympic Symbols source (http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_672.pdf) is a broken link and doesn't exsist, and when I searched the entire Olympic site, it actually uses the concept of 2 Americas as well, so I don't think this source can be used. (2) The Brizilian embassy site link is a broken link as well (http://www.brasilemb.org/embassy/embaixador_regional.shtml), and when I search the entire site, I only found examples of Latin America, American (used in context of the U.S. only) and no example America being used to describe both landmasses as one (except for a song translation), so I don't think this source can be used either. Again, both concepts should be mentioned, but can someone find better sources to cite for the concept of a supercontinent, South America being a subcontinent instead of just continent? I'm not going to delete any of the text at all, but I'm going to delete the inline citation sources for reasons as stated above. Kman543210 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean GDP PP

it was showing 16.277 while source for 2005 reads 12,277. it was corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.0.158 (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caption changes

Could someone please explain the constant back and forth editing that's occurring regarding the captions of some of these images? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that is open to a lot of interpretation. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're referring to the same thing that I've noticed, but I've seen an IP editor continue to enlarge all the images to 250px, insert subjective statements such as "most important", as well as adding "South America" to the end of each caption. I'm not sure why the editor continues to do this without any explanation since those edits are constantly being reverted by several editors. The subjective statements don't need to be there, and adding "South America" to the cities in the captions is redundant, but does anyone think that the pictures need to be enlarged? I think they're fine the size they are. Kman543210 (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:200.118.22.63 also adds a whole bunch of line spaces, creating a huge blank space in the article. There is no reason for the images to be larger than default (180px), especially when there are a bunch together. It overwhelms the text. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository for images. This IP editor has been warned repeatedly. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The article is heavily biased towards andine culture. South America historically is not only Peru and Chile the emphasis on this is just plain bias and needs severe balancing from history expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.13.96 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article should not be only about Peru and Chile, but I don’t think as it currently stands it’s biased in favor of either one.
I don’t know what you mean by Andean culture, considering that most countries (except Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay) have a range of the Andes within their territories.
Now, if we talk about pre-Columbian history and taking into account the prominence of the Inca civilization, I don’t think the historical summary of the article overemphasizes it. Moreover, other civilizations (from today’s Colombia) such as the Muisca are also mentioned the article.
Note, that the Mapuches, the main indigenous population of Chile and Argentina, are not even mentioned.


In terms of history, I definitely can see some room for improvement.
Perhaps, and since it’s barely mentioned, we could add a more detailed information of the independence movement championed by Simon Bolivar, and to a lesser extent maybe we could include a brief summary of the internal conflicts and wars between South American nations.
Again, I don’t see the article as biased, but rather incomplete.
In any case, if you feel you can constructively contribute to make the article more historically accurate and complete, please by all means, feel free to jump in.
Likeminas (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugues, Spanish and the use of boxes

The growing use of boxes, such as {South America Box} included in this article is a nuisance. At times, users can see the need for editing information in an article, but if it is not possible to access the information, this gets harder. This box is a case in point, the article doesn't link to it in any way and despite having close to 10.000 edits on Wikipedia, I'm not able to find it. As it happens, the box contains an error, listing Spanish ahead of Portuguese. Regardless of whether we consider the number of speakers in South America or the alphabetical order, Portuguese should come before Spanish. I would have been happy to correct the information, but as it is not possible, I have to remove the whole box because of the inaccuracy. A rather drastic solution to a problem that could easily have been fixed, and far from ideal. That is an obvious drawback of using boxes, but could anyone tell me the benefits.

Why exactly are you removing the box? What information are you looking for? Why do you think Portuguese should come before Spanish? And what inaccuracies are you talking about?
Please, explain it to me like a 5 yr old, because I do not understand.
As far as the benefits of having the box go. It does serve several purposes as it shows a visual point location within the globe. It lists a brief summary of the area, population, pop. Density, number of countries, languages times zones, and the largest cities.
Likeminas (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Please, explain it to me like a 5 yr old, because I do not understand." Ok, my pleasure :) Here goes:
  1. "Why do you think Portuguese should come before Spanish?" Tables of this kind list languages either in alphabetical order or by number of speakers in the area it covers. In the alphabet, P comes before S. In South America, Portuguese is the largest language by numbers of speakers.
  2. I do not question the utility of the information in the box, I'm questioning the idea of having it in a locked template that cannot be edited. Have a look at the French [6] or Spanish [7] version of this page. The same box is there, but its content can be edited. The box at this page cannot be edited. That should be changed.
I hope I was clear enough. I'm waiting a short while for some information to be provided on how to edit the box, then I'm afraid I have to remove it again as I do not want the page to present inaccurate information. And once again, boxes of this kind (locked ones that cannot be edited) do not benefit Wikipedia in any way.JdeJ (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't want to endorse single-use templates like {{South America box}}, the box is not locked in any way. Any editor can edit it at any time by editing the page Template:South America box. Spacepotato (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Just because P comes before S, or Brazil has more people within South America does not warrant the deletion of the box. What if one were to say that S is before P because S has more elements (countries) than P? That could be an argument too.
It's important to notice that not all articles about regions are identical, standardized, nor I believe they should be.
The benefits of the box, far outweight the drawbacks you mention. Now if the fact that Spanish is being mentioned before Portuguese, bothers you so much, please feel free to edit it as Spacepotato as pointed out it is possible.
Likeminas (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History - Independence Small mistake

The article claims: "... Meanwhile, San Martín led an army from the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata across the Andes Mountains, meeting up with General Bernardo O'Higgins in Chile, and then marched northward to gain the military support of various rebels from the Viceroyalty of Peru" (bolding mine) This is a mistake O´Higgins wasn't in Chile at the time but in Argentina. He left Argentina together with San Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.234.241 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religions and Beliefs

Are the no religions or religious beliefs in South America? Faro0485 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most spoken language

Portuguese may be marginally the most spoken language in S America (I'd like to see a source for this though) but to remove Spanish from the equation as one editor has done in opposition to at least 3 other editors, is inappropriate. Please bring your reasons here before edit warring again. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil population is 198.739,269 (56% of south america population ) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html

IBGE (instituto brasileiro de geografia e estatistica ) brazilian population 201,000,000 (2009 estimative )

many people say that only one country speek portuguese in south america and many countries speek spanish , it true but the population of all spanish speeker countries are smaller than the brazilian population .

brazil have 27 states i was thinking about compare in population the brazilian states to the spanish speeking countries in south america

1- state of São Paulo - 41.011.635 / argentina - 40.677.348 / + 500.000 2- state of minas gerais 20.000.000/ venezuela -25.000.000 / - 5.000.000 3- state of Rio de janeiro 16.000.000/chile -16.000.000 / = 4- state of bahia 15.000.000/ ecuador-13.700.000 / + 1.300.000 5- state of Rio grande do sul 11.000.000/ bolivia 9.000.000 / + 2.000.000

the population of the other 22 brazilian states together is over 100 million / peru 28.000.000 + colombia 40.000.000+ uruguay 3.000.000 = 71.000.000 / brazilian states 29.000.000 +

all the numbers here are aproximate http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_estados_do_Brasil_por_popula%C3%A7%C3%A3o https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.140.219 (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I agree that Portuguese is marginally the most spoken language in S America but that does not mean that it is the dominant language because Spanish is still spoken by over 40% of the people and thus I do not agree with your edit which seems to downplay Spanish's importance in S America. we need to get the balance right, both here and in other articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That edit is bordering the issue of undue weight.
Likeminas (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other considerations: Many Brazilians also speak Spanish. Should they be counted as Spanish speakers? Do South Americans outside of Brazil speak Portuguese? Many South Americans, including Brazilians, also speak English, should that count? Also, do all the native peoples in Brazil speak Portuguese? What about the natives of other countries in South America? How big is the native population? With the numbers so close, and all of these variables, is it clear that one language predominates over the other?

On the other hand, many in the United States think that only Spanish is spoken in South America. It is helpful to make it clear that there are at least two languages that are widely spoken, and many others as well. Ileanadu (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why some people are still vandalizing the language section trying to say that spanish is the most widely spoke language of south america , spanish is spoken in most of the countries of south america but portuguese is the most widely spoken language of south america and i have no doubt you just have to analize the facts brazilian population is much bigger than the population of the spanish speeker countries and portuguese is spoken by 100% of brazilian population in many spanish speeking countries such as paraguay indigenous languages are spoken by most of the population .

And i also think that we should use the name Castellian and not spanish or at least like spanish(castellian) because only in puerto rico , mexico and in the USA they use the name spanish and in all the other countries of latin america and in the iberic countries portugal and spain they use castellian , because they have at least 5 different languages in spain so when you refer to castellian as spanish looks like that you are trying to say that castellian is the national language of spain .

I also agree with the thought that there is no spanish language , should only use the term castellian , there is a spanish group of language any language that have a origin where today is spain could be called spanish , catallan,portuguese,mandares,asturian,galego and many others . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis.grande (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Independence - Dates

The independence section begins by saying:

The South American possessions of the Spanish Crown won their independence between 1704 and 1776 in the South American Wars of Independence.

This cannot be correct. Simon Bolivar was not born until 1783. Moreover, the article on the History of South America#Independence says:

The Spanish colonies won their independence in the first quarter of the 19th century, in the South American Wars of Independence.

Also, the American Revolution in the late 18th Century was an influence on the South American independence movement. Ileanadu (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  • 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Very nice map dude. Good job!
Likeminas (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could take credit, but it's nothing to do with me! I do agree, though - superb map. SVG too, so it's (a) easy to recycle into other continents, and (b) scales - it looks great on my 1600x900 monitor, and also on my tiny little phone.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I support this proposal. And, until that time, I believe the long-standing locator map should remain as is or until a better option is available. A recent map added, without discussion or consensus, is insufficient. Thus, I'm restoring the prior long-standing map. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The post you're respoding to is the actual discussion and consensus seeking-attempt you seem to refering to.
In any case, and as per WP: BE BOLD adding the map without any discussion is perfectly acceptable.
Likeminas (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD is fine in general but in this case I'd need to get an SVG expert to make various maps, so I'd rather the targets for the maps were happy with the idea so SVG work didn't go to waste ;-) As it stands, so far most continents seem happy with the proposal (exceptions being the large continents like Afro-Eurasia, where one hemisphere is too small), so if there have been no objections in the next few days I'll get the ball rolling.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about this specific map and not the overall project of replacing other images with this kind of map.
In my view, the map has all the necessary details a decent map would display, in addition to being more visually appealing.
Likeminas (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Still, to make life easier for the SVG people I'm going to submit all maps as a batch (as I understand it they can then edit the existing Europe map to make South America etc fairly easily, but I'm guessing it'll be easier for them if they do all at the same time). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say it's great, and hopefully all articles about continents adopt this kind of map for the sake of uniformity and visual appeal.
Keep up the good work!
Likeminas (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the prior long-standing map; recent insertion of a number of SVGPNG maps (by someone who has since retired etc.), while innovative in some ways, is detrimental: the colour scheme is odd (why black for land?), is too detailed for its purpose as a locator map, and the format is rather inconsistent with many other locator maps used in this Wikipedia (e.g., the other continents). I don't find the recent map more visually appealing, there's too much happening, though the projection is a plus. As well, this discussion presupposes that there is no consensus regarding the long-standing map which, by virtue of its longevity (in place for at least a year), is incorrect. Discussions are underway to develop a whole new standard of maps (e.g., like at Europe or Brazil), and so I see no reason to put in place something that has no consensus for inclusion and will likely change again soon anyway. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Small point: the "black land" maps were PNGs, not SVGs. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
So far I see more people for the new map than for the old one, so having a temporary majority on that matter, I don’t see why it should not be changed.
Now, if more people come across in favor of restoring the old map, then, you’ll have a stronger consensus on that position and the map can stay the way it is. Until that doesn’t happen there’s no policy or guideline preventing us from updating the map.
In addition to that, and since there’s no such a policy (nor any privileges) on the longevity of certain information (i.e. maps or pictures) and as we know from WP:BOLD and WP:IMAGE one should just go ahead and edit not necessarily seeking consensus first, especially when it comes to images that might have reached the end of their life cycle as it appears to be in this case. So longevity is certainly not an issue here.
You don’t like the map because according to you it is too detailed. And that’s fine because you’re entitled to your opinion. But have you ever thought that in Regional geography or Cartography, for example, details in a map might be desirable?
I personally support updating of the new map, precisely, because it shows important details (such as; countries’ boundaries) that the other map lacked or omitted.
And as far as the black color goes, I’m fine with that too, as it shows in a clear and unambiguous way the contrast between land and water.
Last but not least;
While ongoing discussions on the maps of Europe or Brazil might be interesting and educative, they should no be taken as a deciding factor on this discussion.
Wikipedia articles are not identical or standardized; nor should they be.
Regards,
Likeminas (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so majorities are inapplicable. While consensus can change and I invite change, per policy, this has yet to happen: what (arguably) two editors assert as yet is not a sufficient reason and too limiting to trump months or years of stability with the locator map.
As well, it is not merely an issue of me 'not liking' the map. Locator maps for country articles (per standards in the country wikiproject) do not nearly exhibit the level of detail this map unnecessarily does ... and locator maps do not need to. Continental locator maps (which are all similar to the long-standing map and, in turn, the country maps) needn't be significantly different ... and you have yet demonstrated why they should be. (Exhibiting country borders is a plus, though.) Moreover, the editor who added the maps without discussion was reverted by a number of editors, was blocked for edit warring and incivility, and left. So, arguably, the map has no place here.
Lastly, discussions in parallel articles do have some relevance in helping to maintain or develop a consistent standard. A new map style for use throughout these articles is under discussion. You want one article amidst many to retain a uniquely-formatted, substandard, badly rendered, and obsolete map? Fine, but don't be surprised if you are reverted as a result. And, please, don't spout out accusations that I am not discussing this: I am doing so on a number of article pages, and have commented here perhaps more than necessary. That's all. Bosonic dressing (User talk:Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up on that last point - Likeminas supported the proposed new-style map, above.
I don't know how long it'll take the Image Workshop people to craft a new South America map, but I suspect not too long. I'd strongly urge that any reverting be delayed until then. (Of course I'm hoping that the new map won't be reverted...!) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said WP is a democracy. What was actually said is that more people support (2 to 1) updating of the new map. Why should your view weight more than what most people (so far) think about this issue?
You seem to insist on a previous consensus. But so far you have failed to show what that consensus consists of. You are merely assuming there was consensus. But even if we were to assume and accept there was a previous consensus, Consensus can change and be disputed. So that's not a sound argument as far as policy goes.
In an attempt to discredit and dismiss the new map, you're now resorting to attacking the editor who created the map. And you know what? The editor could have killed 100 babies in church and be the most evil person in the world and yet that would be still be irrelevant. Why? because we're here to discuss content and not the editor. So that's another flawed argument against the updated map.
Actually, I cited this not in an attempt to discredit the creator, assumptions of good faith aside, but to demonstrate that the basis for placing the map in the article in the first place is invalid, having been done with little or no discussion and without any consensus.
As well, it is not MY viewpoint that has more or less weight than anyone else's, but the countless other editors who saw fit to not change the map in many months that does. (The other commentator to date utilised this same reasoning about consensus when communicating with the map creator beforehand, so I find this odd.) Anyhow, I advocate we retain the prior map, similarly formatted as the locator map for Oceania (which in turn is the same as used in other continental articles), Middle East map below the introduction, and many others. That is, until one for South America is available that resembles the one at Europe (which I may create anyway for immediate purposes).
Lastly, given your wild inferences above about me making ad hominem attacks and not discussing edits, I don't believe I will be discussing this with you hereafter until an apology is tendered. Now, that's all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly I agree that discussions in similar articles might prove to be useful (not deciding) when it comes to the fate of this article, that’s why I invite you to visit and see that Europe (same orthographic projection as this article), Middle East and Oceania have all different kinds of maps, which in turn, proves that not all articles about regions or continents are identical or standardized.
I also propose we leave the orthographic projection for now.
In the meantime we can open as request for comment, so that more people can give their opinion (on this specific article) and then decide which map should stay up.
Likeminas (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate you responding BELOW my remarks and not cutting them off as sign of courtesy and good etiquette.
Regarding you attacking the creator of the map, allow me to quote you:

Moreover, the editor who added the maps without discussion was reverted by a number of editors, was blocked for edit warring and incivility, and left. So, arguably, the map has no place here.

and now let me ask you? Are you discussing only the merits of the map or are you pointing out that the creator’s character was X,Y and Z thus the map has no place in the article?
If that’s not a personal attack I don’t what is.
As I said from the very beginning of this discussion, and I wish you could grasp this concept.
If you see something that can be improved, BE BOLD improve it!
This means that an essential part of being bold is that you don’t necessarily need to seek consensus to make a change or in this case update a map.
I said that you refused to discuss this subject because you simply did. Just look at the article history, there’s two reverts which you did not fully explain at the talk page.
Finally I must warn you that edit warring will be promptly reported at the appropriate noticeboard and you might get blocked. So please, give this article a rest, cool down and let other people chime in.
Likeminas (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the character of the editor, but the lack of consensus regarding the map's inclusion to begin with. Obviously, you misunderstand the point. Given the above -- coupled with your lack of contrition and condescension, not to mention conflation and hypocrisy regarding edit warring -- I see no reason to continue this thread with you. I will 'chime' in when others do, however. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There go you again, completely lacking any Wikietiquete by cutting off other people's posts and attacking their character (calling me a hypocrite?) instead of their arguments.
Did you know that people also get blocked for uncivility and lack of etiquette?
That I was blocked before is totally irrelevant in this discussion.
I didn't hold it against you that you have, indeed, been blocked in the past, because I'm assuming good faith from you. I expected reciprocity. Now it seems, I was mistaken.
Correction: per the admin, "[I] was reverting a disuptive editor, there was no 3RR vio" and was unblocked. Hmmm. End communication. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant, however, that you don't edit war on this particular article. I see no hypocrisy or inconsistency on warning you or asking you that.
I must say, however, that it is appreciated that you will take a brake from reverting this article. Let's allow that other people weigh in their opinions before taking any further action on the matter.
Likeminas (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New SVG map

File:Location South America.svg

Now that that's over with, I have boldly placed an SVG map in the article, modelled on those at Europe, Brazil, et al. There are very minor differences (e.g., country borders, graticule 'under' land), but these are more due to the inequities of learning a new graphics program, and can be 'fixed' if need be. Thoughts? Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The details of showing countries boundaries (IMHO) is a big improvement from the older maps. Good job Bd.
Likeminas (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy too. I've requested similar maps for most of the remaining continents, including Antarctica, and Arctic too. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TY. I will try to create what I can, but time is not in abundance. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic chart error

I noticed a display error in the sort function for land area...it displays Chile at #2 which is incorrect when sorted largest to smallest... 70.105.79.231 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_America&oldid=326630713"