Talk:South America

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)

Religions and Beliefs

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

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)

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)

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)

Yes. That edit is bordering the issue of undue weight.

Likeminas (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Maps for continents - proposal

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

• Europe (current)
• Asia (former)
• South America (current)

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 red^propaganda_deeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice map dude. Good job!

Likeminas (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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 red^propaganda_deeds 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 red^propaganda_deeds 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 red^propaganda_deeds 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

(Small point: the "black land" maps were PNGs, not SVGs. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

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)

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)

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 red^propaganda_deeds 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 red^propaganda_deeds 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

TY. I will try to create what I can, but time is not in abundance. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Portuguese is not the most spoken language in South America, it is in the most populated country of both Latin America and South America

It is a big mistake to affirm that Portuguese is the most spoken language in South America. 192,098,152 is the estimate population of Brazil for 2009. And the combined population of the Spanish-speaking countries in South America is 194,031,886 for 2009. So it would be fair to say that, currently, Spanish and Portuguese are both spoken by a similar number or percentage of people, in this continent.

And it is a fact that the Spanish-speaking countries of South America will clearly surpass Portuguese in a coming future as 9 countries have much more population growing potential than 1. And also the fact that Spanish is much taught in Brazil than Portuguese elsewhere in South America, clarifies that Spanish is slightly more spoken as a first and second language in South America.

So, please, if there is not a reference or citation to say "Portuguese, is the most spoken language in South America, a geographic region which is part of the bigger cultural region of Latin America.[citation needed] Portuguese is the official language of Brazil, which holds over 50% of the South American population" this should be deleted as it is a fake statement. 92.0.226.39 (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But there is a significant difference. Portuguese is spoken by nearly 100% of brazilian people, but spanish is not that much spoken in some countries like Paraguay and Bolivia, where indigenous languages are still very strong. And yes, spanish is taught in school in Brazil, and english also (even more, and I bet in other south american countries too), so should you count it too? Both are not very well taught and most brazilians don't have a good spanish level without extra studies, so no, they don't speak spanish in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.106.51.39 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's do a simple calculation with the figures from wikipedia? (~99% used when "virtually everyone") Portuguese: ~99% of Brazil (192 million) = 190 million people Spanish: ~99% of Venezuela (27 million) + ~99% of Colombia (45 million) + ~99% of Ecuador (14 million) + 84% of Peru (29 million) + 61% of Bolivia (11 million) + 75% of Paraguay (6,5 million) + Argentina (40 million) + ~99% of Uruguay (4 million) + ~99% of Chile (17 million) = less than 182 million people Conclusion: portuguese is the most spoken language in South America!

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Both this article and French_Guiana, use the same use the same INSEE document (http://prod-afd.afd.zeni.fr/jahia/webdav/site/cerom/users/admin_cerom/public/Pdf/CR2006_guy.pdf) as a source for the GDP and GDP per capita.

But the two articles show radically different results : GDP per capita of "€13,800 (US$17,38)" for the main article, and "2,300 (nominal, 2007)" for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.115.48 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No good political map

I am looking for the names of four countries north of Chile. Why doesn't this article have a nice map where all the countries can be located? __meco (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The map with country names is located at the "Politics" section MBelgrano (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)