Talk:Latin America/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Easter Island?

Why is there a picture of "Rano Raraku Moai in Easter Island buried to their shoulders." next to chichen itza and macchu piccu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.142.164 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. I've gotten rid of it.Kww (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fauna and Flora!

Why Latin America article nor South America article have not anything related to the flora and fauna?

Pointless

The Jalisco Mexico picture comment is out of the blue and irrelevant. There are way more places in Latin America with European immigrants than Jalisco Mexico. Please take it off. It takes all seriousness away from the article and it's made into a pride type of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.22.115 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe its been removed. I cannot find it. LostLucidity (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup still needed?

After having been through the Article Improvement Drive and all, is this article still in need of cleanup? If so, perhaps it would be more useful to tag specific parts of the article, or specific problems, rather than the whole thing being tagged for general cleanup (if anyone has any specific suggestions). -- Beland 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup is needed throughout the article. Perhaps phases of clean up can be established from the top down. LostLucidity (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannot believe this is in an ENCYCLOPAEDIA

"# From Africa, the Latin American countries received the sense of rhythm and some of their dances such as the dances of the Caribbean, the bomba, the plena, the candombe, the cumbia and many others."

Sounds like patronizing social-darwinism to me. The only thing African culture has given to Latin America is a sense of rhythm?


Maps

The maps need to agree with the text, and with eachother. On the Large map, the whole Carribean is shown, but not on the inset, and in the text it states that French and Kreyol areas are not counted as Latin America.

Independent States?

Why the hell does Independent States link here?

It refers to the "Spanish Speaking Commonwealth of Independent States" (1810s-1820s). A better target would have been South American Wars of Independence. Nothing links to it, so I've nominated it for deletion.-gadfium 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Spanish Speaking Commonwealth" huh? lol... Isn't that the Latin Union ?

No, the spanish-speaking countries are only a part of the latin union. In the latin union there are also the portuguese-speaking, French-speaking, Italian-speaking and romanian-speaking.

Great...but...

Where is the human-environment interaction?? Isn't that nessesary in a geographical article??

65.68.242.70 21:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)kaleigh mac65.68.242.70 21:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Latin America in Spanish

What is it?

You might look here for a guide: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/América_Latina. -Will Beback 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

California

Its a fact that no definiton includes California as part of Latin America, no discussion there. But lets see, definition for Anglo-America includes English speaking countries and regions in America including the Frech region in Canada, that its a fact, most people there speak both french and english so that region is partly anlgo-american and partly french.

Then California (even the name is in spanish) were large number of people speaks spanish and english and were large number of people is not only from latin american origin but in fact they are Latin Americans living in the USA.. then when speaking, studing the term Latin America there should be a section for this regions in America (California, South Texas, Miami area, etc) that in fact are not part of the definition of latin america but are so close to be.

Etymology of the term Latin America - Misconception

According to this article, the term Amerique Latine (Latin America in French) "was coined by French emperor Napoleon III, who cited Amerique Latine and Indochine as goals for expansion during his reign". The Spanish and Portuguese versions of this article also present the term Latin America as created or invented by Napoleon III or his regime to justify French expansionism in Latin America and particularly in Mexico. It is certainly beyond doubt that the term was politically useful for French interests at that time. But the term was not "coined" (which I understand to mean that it was first used or invented) by Napoleon III or by the French government. In fact, before that time some French and Latin American authors and politicians had already incorporated the term, or variations thereof, to express a notion of Latin identity in the Americas (opposed to an "Anglo identity"). According to Uruguayan professor Arturo Ardao (Ardao, Arturo. America latina y la latinidad, UNAM-CCyDEL, México, 1993) and others, the creation of the term Latin America resulted from the consolidation of the idea of opposition between a "Latin Europe", catholic, and a "Teutonic Europe", protestant, and the corresponding opposition between the two Americas. This idea was present in the introduction of "Letters of North America" by Michel Chevalier (1836), among others, but he actually never used the term Latin America (as suggested in the article as an alternate view). The first actual records of the terms "Latin-American" and "Latin America" are dated of 1856 (shortly after the Mexican-American war), and are the creation of a Chilean politician and a Colombian author. Chilean Francisco Bilbao, cited by Ardao, refers to the "raza latinomaericana" (Latin-American race) in the context of the aggressions perpetrated and the menace represented by the United States of America. Colombian Jose Maria Torres Caicedo begins its poem "Las Dos Americas", published in September 1856, saying: "La raza de la America Latina al frente tiene la sajona raza" (something like "The race of Latin America has in its front the Saxon race"). And then the term was "coined". Torres Caicedo (who was the founder of the Latin American Union Society in 1879) and other Latin-Americans adopted that term in the 1860's to refer to the region or to its Latin identity. Argentinean most famous international law professor, Carlos Calvo, published a work named "Recueil Complet des Traites, Conventions, Capitulations, Armistices et autres Actes Diplomatiques de tous les Etats de l’Amerique Latine" in 1962. Professor Ardao attributes the common error of believing that "Latin America" was an expression coined by French ideologues to a 1968 study by American Professor John Phelan. Bottom line: the term Latin America does not seem to be a French invention to justify intervention in Latin America (although actually used for that purpose), but an expression that was first used by Latin-Americans to oppose themselves to Anglo America in the context of resistance against the United States of America expansionism and the Monroe doctrine, and based on a genuine Latin-American union idea. French abuse was collateral damage. --adelius 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

English is also a romantic language.

When it says that english is a germanic language, is it not also a romantic language? This might be something to edit.

Can you please source this claim? SqueakBox 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
English is only a Germanic language, not a Romance language. The Romance languages are Spanish, Italian, French, Romanian, and Portugese. E Pluribus Americanus 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

English gets lots of its vocabulary from Latin languages, but its grammar is pretty darn German, which is what counts, apparently. 172.137.19.134RKH —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, modern English receives 80% of its vocabulary from Latin (due to Norman influence), yet 90% of its grammatical rules are Germanic, and that is what counts. Rafajs77 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

english though is a germanic language it has much latin influence not only because of the normans,but mostly because of the romans themselves(lol) britain or britannia was the longest occupied region of europe (about 400 years) not to speak a romance language the reason for this is because after the romans left there was succesive invasions by the germanic tribes after the romans left to try and save the crumbling roman empire,this is probaly why some form of a latin derived language did not take root in britain,if it was not for the germanic tribes language influence, great britain might be called great britannia and spoke a latin language,but why say english is germanic only?--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Economics

The economics section is now too long, especially since the inflation figures have been added. I propose that only the table with different statistics be left in the article along with a 2 to 3 paragraph summary. Then, a new article, Economy of Latin America, can be created that would include the inflation table, and expand on what has already been written. --Alonso 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I can make a try with a reduced version and share it with you over here before revising the article.
I would reduce the article only to figures contemplating aggregate indices and deleting those references applying to specific countries (like Gini index, GDP, etc.), and keep the last chart. BTW, the chart I added today is of GDP growth, not inflation (I am clarifying that).
And, Alonso, I apologize again for the unintended deletion yesterday of data you consider important to keep in the article.--Diegou 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I hadn't realized the chart was about GDP.

By the way, I want to kindly request Alex Covarrubias to stop his reiterated and unjustified reversions. If he has a valid reason why he wants to delete the historical GDP growth data, or a valid reason why he thinks its better to sort countries by GNI intead of sorting them alphabetically, or a valid reason why he wants do delete Gini indices of all countries, then I ask him to share it with us so that we can discuss it. Deleting data just for the sake of it could be considered vandalism. If he has some information that we need to consider, we will do so, and change whatever needs to be changed for the sake of the quality of our encyclopedia. I strongly oppose his unjustified and repeated reversions. I have already asked him on previous occasions to participate constructively. Since he never responded and deleted my request, I ask him again, now publicly, to do so. Please, participate by discussing and not simply deleting. I also ask the same thing of the "new" user, Dr. Kerr.

--Alonso 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

worldbank.org external link

This link: Infrastructure Projects Database Latin America and the Caribbean

Was added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group. We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved it here for other editors to consider. I personally think the link to an infrastructure database without context in an article about the country as a whole is not particularly useful to our readers, and we would be better off with a more focused external links section. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this link should not be in the article. The information in the link may be worth adding to Economy of South America, Economy of North America and Economy of the Caribbean however.-gadfium 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --the Dúnadan 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed racist part of the document

For those who are interested in "racial questions": please refer to the article race. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion. The section speaks about the ethnography of Latin America. Ethnic composition is never racist in itself. --the Dúnadan 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I agree that the demographics part is very problematic. Demographics is much more than just telling about ethnic origins--gender, age, class, urbanization comes to mind. But I would like to have more discussion before deleting a big chunc of the article. How to reduce it and add other elements, maybe.--Ninarosa 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose, SqueakBox 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the version before deletion of this part. May someone give here scientific explanation of the term "race", including valid references? This is not about ethnic composition (all demographics related to ethnicities should stay), but this is pseudo-scientific claims that the term race explains something. I don't care if any of Latin American government is racist. Wikipedia is not inside of their jurisdiction. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Millosh, I have no problem in changing in using the word "ethnic" instead of "racial". However, most texts nowadays use the concept of race as a historical-social construction, not a biological category. I agree it may be confusing to get these nuances in the wiki. I insist, however, that the big problem of this demographic section is how demographics are just identified with ethnicity, race, color, national origin or whatever, ignoring other important variables for demographics.--Ninarosa 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then statistics should be well described wherever it is necessary to include the term "race". Where it is not necessary, geographical and ethnic terminology should be used. Also, I would like to see the article which would explain that "historical-social" meaning of the term "race" with which the term from this article may be linked. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
MIllosh, see the article Social Interpretations of race , in particular this paragraph:

Historians, anthropologists and social scientists often describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population, which can be given a clear operational definition. Even those who reject the formal concept of race, however, still use the word race in day-to-day speech. This may either be a matter of semantics, or an effect of an underlying cultural significance of race in racist societies. Regardless of the name, a working concept of sub-species grouping can be useful, because in the absence of cheap and widespread genetic tests, various race-linked gene mutations (see Cystic fibrosis, Lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs Disease and Sickle cell anemia) are difficult to address without recourse to a category between "individual" and "species". As genetic tests for such conditions become cheaper, and as detailed haplotype maps and SNP databases become available, the need to resort to race should diminish. This is fortunate, as increasing interracial marriage is reducing the predictive power of race. For example, most babies born with Tay-Sachs in North America at present are not from Jewish families, despite stereotypes to contrary."

--Ninarosa 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did these stats come from. We need a proper source or this sectionm must be deleted as OR, see WP:NOR, SqueakBox 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. If sourced I do not oppose the inclusion of the section. I think CIA World Fact provides ethnographic statistics con all Latin American countries, in which case, adding them up will be a source. I doubt adding numbers is OR. But I also doubt that this was what the author of that section did. --the Dúnadan 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding up numbers from one source isnt OR but adding them up from several sources or a series of documents in one source, is IMO, OR, SqueakBox 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, adding numbers from different sources is not a good idea. I do not know what the editor of that section did. But if we are really interesting in keeping that section, I guess we could get CIA's statistics for that. I don't have the time to do it myself right now, but it is just a suggestion for the editor who wrote that or for whoever is interested. --the Dúnadan 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This might help. Knock yourselves out, boys: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html I didn't write the article section, btw, but I know the figures check out. SamEV 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that is fine then, SqueakBox 00:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions about Venezuela are OR. Cited source [1] doesn't have any word "race" or "racial". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Racial composition -- a clear example of OR

Even CIA Factbook is not coherent, this part of the article is a clear example of WP:OR. There is no coherent data about "racial composition" of Latin America (even inside of CIA Factbook). For some of countries "racial composition" data exist, for some of them data are partial and for some of them data don't exist: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • With data: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • With partial data: Bolivia, Costa Rica (with "Chinese" as "racial group"), Cuba (with "Chinese" as "racial group"), Ecuador (with "Spanish" as "racial group"), Guatemala (only "Mestizo" as "racial group"; Mestizo (mixed Amerindian-Spanish - in local Spanish called Ladino) and European 59.4%, K'iche 9.1%, Kaqchikel 8.4%, Mam 7.9%, Q'eqchi 6.3%, other Mayan 8.6%, indigenous non-Mayan 0.2%, other 0.1% (2001 census), Peru (with "Japanese" and "Chinese" as "racial groups"). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Without data for "racial composition": French dependeces (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique) and Venezuela. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the whole part should be removed as OR until relevant data are provided. (Some secondary source with a good explanation of the "racial composition of LA".) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The only coherent data you racist KKK Celt-Americans want to see here is something like: "300% of Brazilians are Catholic Niggers who speak Spanish and eat bananas". What is it so incoherent with Japanese-Peruvians and Chinese-Peruvians being racial minorities in Peru? Perhaps because you bigots were taught there are only Spics and Niggers Southwards River Grande and when you read something about other ethnicities than Niggers and Spics dwelling in Latin America, you get so confused that your brains stop working, too much information for your little heads.

Important: Population by language distribution

As of right now this article fails miserably in expressing exactly how many people speak this or that language. Therefore I would like to suggest an improvement to item 5.3 Language. My idea would be to include this table (I did not find a reference for the percentages, so they are to be understood as illustrative only):

Spanish 60% - Main countries:
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela

Portuguese 30% - Main countries:
Brazil

Creole 1% - Main countries:
Haiti

French 1% - Main countries:
French Guiana

ETC...

I believe the table would be redundant with the information and the map in the section. I see no need in adding a table to convey the same information, albeit in a different format. However, I think it would be useful to add population absolutes (number) and relatives (percentages) for the whole region within the text. --theDúnadan 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, not redundant at all!!! This information is hard to gather from the article and is of extreme usefulness. Say you were a TV station, a publisher, software company, etc. Would you care to distribute the media to Latin America in Spanish, Portuguese and French or are Portuguese and French negligible? Or as per a division in Miami of some given company which is supposed to handle "Latin America": do you need to hire Portuguese and French speaking attendants or will all-Spanish attendants be enough?

Like I said, adding percentages to the text already there suffices (if we have sources to prove that percentages are precise and not someone's approximations). A table that repeats the information albeit in a different format would be redudant. --theDúnadan 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

LACRO = Latin America and Caribbean Regional Office (LACRO)

  • GRULAC = Latin America and the Caribbean Group/Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe (GRULAC)
  • ECLAC = Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)
  • LACRO = Latin America and Caribbean Regional Office (LACRO)

Notice: In all cases "Latin America (AND) the Caribbean" are used when they wish to refer to both regions. 63.115.22.150 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

CaribDigita 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

São Paulo shown among latin american capitals?

São Paulo is for sure the most important city in Brazil for its big population and its presence in the brazilian economy. However, the other pictures shown are capitals of different countries, which makes me believe that a picture of Brasília, capital of Brazil, would be a better option to represent my country in this article. Moreover, showing São Paulo among capitals of latin american countries can lead to serious mistakes from the readers of Wikipedia.jgsodre

I agree with you. AlexCov Flag of Mexico.svg Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It clearly isnt the capital and arguably not the most important Brazilian city either. That surely is Rio de Janeiro, SqueakBox 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in Rio de Janeiro and it is for sure an important city in Brazil. But as I said, economically talking, São Paulo is more important, because of the large presence of companies there. I believe that Rio holds the title of most important cultural and touristic city in my country.jgsodre

I'm not a paulistano, but anyone who studies the region knows that since World War !, and esp since the transfer of power from Rio to Brasilia that, though far more famous outside of the region, Rio is "surely" not the most important city in Brazil. Arthurian Legend 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin cultures

Hello everyone! You may want to go to Latin cultures an participate in the article and discussion. There are a lot of disputed statements... The Ogre 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just cities

Looking at the pics it appears that Latin America is just cities, ridiculous OR assertion. I plan on changing this, SqueakBox 04:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're suggesting, but I believe you're saying that we need to introduce pictrues of LA towns or villages. I'm not opposed to that, but there is a reason why there's only cities, or better said, capital cities. It is obvious that every capital city is the most important human agglomeration in each country, so I think that the current list of pics was a logic choice. Also I think it would be very controversial to select what town or village would represent a certain country, because nationals from each country may think that town or village is not the appropiate. However, I might haven't understood your idea, so please can you explain it to me? :D Cheers. AlexCovarrubias Flag of Mexico.svg Black ribbon.png ( Let's talk! ) 05:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The capital cities would make sense in the country pages but a page for Latin America should include a variety of pics that reflect the reality of this region and not just major capital cities, SqueakBox 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting images of only UNESCO World Heritage would also give a false impression. Have in mind that more than 70% of people live in urban areas in Latin America, specially in its most industralized countries. --Mariano(t/c) 12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WE need a mix of stuff. Some cities, some Heritage sites, some natural phenomena, some cuisine, some wildlife, some traditonal costumes etc. 70% do live in urnban areas but this can include stuff like food, clothing, a pic of a mall etc so just having city pics gives a very lop-sided impression. I will work on this over the coming period, SqueakBox 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of featured pictures used by Portal:Latin America may be useful. See Portal:Latin America/Featured picture list for the pictures, and Portal talk:Latin_America#Featured_pictures-order_and_selection for my rationale for using these pictures and not other featured pictures.-gadfium 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with this discussion, or parts of it rather. Those capital (or in the case of Sao Paolo, just large) cities are shown under the economic section of the article for a good reason; business and connections to the global market in Latin America radiate from those urban centers. If you want pictures of UNESCO world heritage sites go to the individual country pages. Rafajs77 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin America vs. Hispanic America vs. Iberic America

1. LATIN AMERICA: The sovereign American countries and the European colonies in Americas where the majority of the population speaks a language directly or indirectly derived from Latin.

These countries are:

  • Mexico (Spanish)
  • Guatemala (Spanish)
  • El Salvador (Spanish)
  • Honduras (Spanish)
  • Nicaragua (Spanish)
  • Costa Rica (Spanish)
  • Panama (Spanish)
  • Cuba (Spanish)
  • Dominican Republic (Spanish)
  • Venezuela (Spanish)
  • Colombia (Spanish)
  • Ecuador (Spanish)
  • Peru (Spanish)
  • Bolivia (Spanish)
  • Paraguay (Spanish)
  • Chile (Spanish)
  • Argentina (Spanish)
  • Uruguay (Spanish)
  • Brazil (Portuguese)
  • Haiti (Creole-French and French)
  • French Guyana (French)
  • Guadalupe (French)
  • Martinica (French)

Quebec cannot be called part of Latin America because it's neither a sovereign American country or an European territory in Americas, it's just part of Canada, and the majority of the population of Canada speaks English which is not a Latin Language but a Teutonic language.

Same is valid for Puerto Rico, it's part of USA, and hence USA is (majorly) an English-speaking country, Puerto Rico must be considered part of the Anglo-Saxon realm.


2. HISPANIC AMERICA: The sovereign American countries where the majority of the population speaks Spanish.

These countries are:

  • Mexico (Spanish)
  • Guatemala (Spanish)
  • El Salvador (Spanish)
  • Honduras (Spanish)
  • Nicaragua (Spanish)
  • Costa Rica (Spanish)
  • Panama (Spanish)
  • Cuba (Spanish)
  • Dominican Republic (Spanish)
  • Venezuela (Spanish)
  • Colombia (Spanish)
  • Ecuador (Spanish)
  • Peru (Spanish)
  • Bolivia (Spanish)
  • Paraguay (Spanish)
  • Chile (Spanish)
  • Argentina (Spanish)
  • Uruguay (Spanish)


3. IBERIC AMERICA: The sovereign American countries and european colonies where the majority of the population speak a language from Iberian Peninsula, or a language derived from one from Iberian Peninsula.

These countries are:

  • Mexico (Spanish)
  • Guatemala (Spanish)
  • El Salvador (Spanish)
  • Honduras (Spanish)
  • Nicaragua (Spanish)
  • Costa Rica (Spanish)
  • Panama (Spanish)
  • Cuba (Spanish)
  • Dominican Republic (Spanish)
  • Venezuela (Spanish)
  • Colombia (Spanish)
  • Ecuador (Spanish)
  • Peru (Spanish)
  • Bolivia (Spanish)
  • Paraguay (Spanish)
  • Chile (Spanish)
  • Argentina (Spanish)
  • Uruguay (Spanish)
  • Brazil (Portuguese)

Spanish and Portuguese are languages from Iberian Peninsula. Papiamento is a language derived from Portuguese outside Portugal.


Latin-American and Hispanic-American are NOT Synonyms.

--Patrasmentium 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical Physical Geography

I want to crescent, if the definitions of what is Latin America and what is Teutonic America seem confuse, the geographycal criterias for dividing Americas physically don't help either. Geographers have traditionally divided the Americas into 4 physicall regions --North America, Central America, Caribbean and South America-- while when we look at the map of Americas, we can see, on a glimpse, only two landmasses, one in the north and another one in the South. So I suggest that we drop out concepts like "Central America" and "Caribbean" and start sticking to the real thing: everything northwards the Isthmus of Panama is North America, and everything southwards it is South America. Most of the Caribbeans would be part of North America, except Trinidad Tobago, Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire that are close enough to South America. Panama would be just a bi-continental country.--Patrasmentium 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


List of authors

As per the discussion at Talk:List of Latin American writers, I reduced the number of authors listed here in the "Literature" section. Moreover, the authors here are a pretty random selection, and it's not at all obvious what the principle of inclusion it. My edit was reverted by User:AlexCovarrubias with the sole comment "Don't delete authors." It might be better to have some kind of discussion as to what, if anything, this list is doing here, and who should be on it. --Jbmurray 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a whole different article, so the "dicussion" there has nothing to do with this article. If you want to delete authors, you should discuss it first, not the opposite way. What makes you think Monsiávais is not a famous author? He is world-wide famous, and there are other cases. As you said, until we can set the base of inclusion, nothing is gonna be deleted. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
How come there's 7 Mexican authors and lets say 1 argentian? I suggest we limit the number of authors from the same country... because I myself could list dozens of world-wide famous Brazilian authors who sold millions of copies. Let's try to be representative and fair, as this is an encyclopedia. Limongi 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Again with your Brazilian bias and boosterism practices? This has just gone too far. The number of authors from every country is not important, that's like saying "we won't give Chile another Nobel in Literature because it is unfair that brazil has none". Talent and world-wide recogznition is not limited. And as a side note, just because an author is famous in a particular country that doesn't mean his famous in Latin America. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(boosterism????) I am not the one reverting changes, and Brazil isn't the country with 7 authors, while other countries aren't even representated. Sorry, but this article is about LATIN AMERICA and not only about Mexico. And if the number of authors is not important, than we should add at least a few other authors, like Paulo Coelho who has sold over 86 million books in over 150 countries worldwide and his works have been translated into 66 languages! And just to remind you, the authors don't have to be "famous in Latin American", but famous "Latin American" authors. Hope I have clarified a few things for you. Limongi 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you clarified something: your bias. The list is about famous Latin American writers, right. It is not an extensive list of ALL of the Latin American writers (that would be the article List of Latin American writers), so there is clearly no need to add "few more authors" to represent countries "that aren't even represented". Not all the Latin American countries have world-wide famous authors, that's nobody's fault. But I guess you'd love to see the list full of brazilian authors, just to "outrank" Mexico. Childish, ridiculous and boosterism. That's all from me. I won't discuss any further with you regarding your boosterism practices, that will be consistently reverted and dealt according. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Guys, relax! What's at issue here is the principle of inclusion. If it's popularity or sales, then Paulo Coelho definitely should be included (and, say, Bosch removed). If it's representativity, then yes the number of Mexicans should be reduced and other nationalities included. If it's importance or notability, then there are a number that need to go (Allende, Monsivais) and maybe a couple of others to be added (I suggested Lezama Lima, for instance). But accusing each other of bias or boosterism and/or threatening reverts doesn't really help advance the discussion. --Jbmurray 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex, yes, this is a different article. But the two are related. Hence the proposal to do something about how they relate (see the banner at the top of this section), and the fact that in different parts of Wikipedia there are four such lists, each of which has its problems. (Again, see the discussion at Talk:List of Latin American writers.) It seems to make sense to have List of Latin American writers be the main page. That list needs to be improved and extended dramatically. And it also makes sense to reduce (or eliminate) the lists that are on this page Latin America and also at Latin American literature and List of Latin American people. I'm relatively easy as to whether the list on this page should simply be reduced or be deleted altogether, though my tendency would be to delete it. However, you want to keep it, and perhaps others think that way, so it would make sense to discuss what should be on it. I think it obvious that the five Nobel Prizewinners should be featured here. (Earlier, the list was lacking Miguel Angel Asturias, so I added him. Oh, and why include the titles of Cien años and Laberinto? NB the Prize isn't given for individual works.) Other issues:
1) The sentence "The Argentine Jorge Luis Borges is an influential figure of Latin-American letters" seems inappropriate. It's true, but he isn't the only one. One would assume that simply including him in the subsequent list would be enough to suggest he's influential or important.
2) The qualifications for the list seem to be in part importance, in part fame, and in part representativity. For instance, I'd argue that Rosa María Britton and Juan Bosch aren't particularly important in the overall panorama of Latin American literature, but it's fine to keep them if they're here as representatives of Panamanian and Dominican literature respectively. In which case, the list should also feature a Venezuelan, an Ecuatorian, and fewer Mexicans.
3) On the other hand, Isabel Allende isn't an important Latin American writer, though she is popular and well-known. If popularity or sales are going to be your criterion, then you need to include, for instance, Paulo Coelho, and perhaps also Laura Esquivel, say.
4) If the point is simply important or influential writers, and this is going to be a relatively short list, then yes Monsivais should go. Yes, he's fairly important, but no more so than many others. Ditto, say, Dalton, Galeano (like Monsivais, more a journalist, and the subhead here is "Literature"), Nervo, Poniatowska, Reyes, Rosa, Savain, Bosch, Britton, for instance. Those are all pretty clearcut cases. (Unless, again, you want to be representative. In which case also a Venezuelan--most obviously Rómulo Gallegos--and an Ecuatorian, perhaps Mera? A Honduran? Costa Rican?)
5) The shorter the list, generally the easier the choices. A long list is also relatively easy. A medium size one, as in this case, is more difficult.
6) As for additions, at first sight I might add Lezama Lima. It might also be good to have a couple of nineteenth-century writers: Sarmiento?
But again, this list as it is now is unsatisfactory and arbitrary, especially (but not only) in the context of what exists elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Plus more important might be to write a decent paragraph above. What was there earlier was incoherent and mainly wrong. I've made an initial attempt to improve it, but much more could be done. (And meanwhile the whole article on Latin American literature needs significant improvement.) Rather than simply reverting, as you've been doing, you could perhaps think of investing a bit of time on these other tasks. --Jbmurray 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


A proposal

First, let me emphasize that it seems most logical to have only the Nobel Prizewinners on this page, then the medium size list at Latin American literature and perhaps also Latin American culture and the comprehensive list at List of Latin American writers, plus I guess something at List of Latin Americans. After all, five lists smack of overkill. But the below is a proposed compromise for anyone who really wants a list here at Latin America.

For what it's worth, I think the list at Latin American literature is a pretty decent one on the whole. It's based it seems on the list at Latin American culture. It has the following, in addition to the Nobel Prize winners (and for what it's worth it's someting of an irony that the Nobel Prize means that Mistral is on all the lists, given how much her star has waned):

  • Machado de Assis
  • Jorge Luis Borges
  • Guillermo Cabrera Infante
  • Julio Cortázar
  • Carlos Fuentes
  • Manuel González Prada
  • José Hernández
  • José Carlos Mariátegui
  • Horacio Quiroga
  • Augusto Roa Bastos
  • Juan Rulfo
  • César Vallejo
  • Mario Vargas Llosa

This is certainly better than the list currently on this page. My quibbles would be with Mariategui (not literary) and Gonzalez Prada.

The list on this page (again, ironically longer than the one at Latin American literature is as follows:

  • Isabel Allende
  • Machado de Assis
  • Mario Benedetti
  • Jorge Luis Borges
  • Juan Bosch
  • Alejo Carpentier
  • Julio Cortázar
  • Rubén Darío
  • Roque Dalton
  • José Donoso
  • Carlos Drummond de Andrade
  • Carlos Fuentes
  • Eduardo Galeano
  • Nicolás Guillén
  • Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz
  • Clarice Lispector
  • Jose Marti
  • Carlos Monsiváis
  • Amado Nervo
  • Elena Poniatowska
  • Alfonso Reyes
  • Guimarães Rosa
  • Juan Rulfo
  • Petion Savain
  • Rosa María Britton
  • César Vallejo
  • Mario Vargas Llosa

Merging the two, to create a medium size list on both pages plus Latin American culture (and leaving a more comprehensive list at List of Latin American writers, I'd propose the following, for which my criterion is importance rather than popularity, with some account of (national and gender and indigenist) representativity:

  • José María Arguedas
  • Machado de Assis
  • Mario Benedetti
  • Jorge Luis Borges
  • Guillermo Cabrera Infante
  • Alejo Carpentier
  • Rosario Castellanos
  • Julio Cortázar
  • Rubén Darío
  • Carlos Drummond de Andrade
  • Carlos Fuentes
  • Nicolás Guillén
  • José Hernández
  • Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz
  • Clarice Lispector
  • Jose Marti
  • Horacio Quiroga
  • Augusto Roa Bastos
  • Guimarães Rosa
  • Juan Rulfo
  • César Vallejo
  • Mario Vargas Llosa

Oh, and I threw in Rosario Castellanos and Jose Maria Arguedas... in case anyone's worried that I deleted too many Peruvians from the first list or too many Mexicans from the second.

Obviously, no list is going to be entirely satisfactory. But I'd welcome suggestions on this one.

And let's not forget, rather more importantly, that the prose both here and at Latin American culture and Latin American literature could do with plenty of improvement.--Jbmurray 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the list you proposed is definately better than the current one. I agree that the criteria of importance should prevail. Limongi 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is a good proposal. Limiting the number of author per country sounds ridiculous. It is like saying, let's not consider more Americans to win the Nobel Prize because we have too many. The whole proposal is an essay, OR. The best solution is either to mention only the Nobel Prize Winners or to find sources about Latin American literature that mentions the most important and influential authors. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex, I'm not suggesting "limiting the number of authors per country." I'm suggesting cutting down this list, and ensuring that the basis of the list is, as I say, "importance rather than popularity, with some account of (national and gender and indigenist) representativity." But I suppose you're right that in a sense any list could arguably be seen as "original research" in so far as it has some arbitrariness. Unfortunately, there's no definite "hit parade" of the most important Latin American writers. (Even, as I noted, the Nobel Prize isn't a good guide: viz. Mistral on the one hand and Borges on the other.) As such, yes, and perhpas while this proposal is discussed, for the time being I agree it might be better only to mention the Nobel Prize winners. I'll make the appropriate edit now. The added benefit is that that's also in line with the discussion at Talk:List of Latin American writers, and so resolves the problematic flag on this section, which I'll also therefore remove. Next, and more important, is the task to improve this section more generally. The very small paragraph of prose text is not very good at all, and should be expanded in line with the film and art sections. Perhaps you might want to kick this off by suggesting a further couple of paragraphs? --Jbmurray 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, and finally, having expanded the prose on this page, I updated the list to be found at Latin American culture (and incidentally copied over the prose from here). Those who want to argue about lists might want to migrate over there. I kept all the writers so far mentioned (Mexican, Brazilian, whatever), and also added a few more for good measure. --Jbmurray 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Topics

I'm interested in sorting out the various information on Latin American cultural topics. At present it tends to be a mess: dispersed, poorly written, poorly organized. It seems to make sense for there to be some kind of hierarchy: that there should be brief discussion of (say) Latin American litertature on this page, somewhat more at Latin American culture, and an in depth and comprehensive page at Latin American literature. The same goes for the relationship between, for instance, this page, Latin American culture, and Latin American art. I've tried to make a start on this by coordinating this page, Latin American culture, and Latin American cinema. (Before, ironically, it was Latin American cinema that was the least developed.) Thoughts and help would be most appreciated. --Jbmurray 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've therefore flagged this article for attention from various Wikiprojects. Let's see if that helps. --Jbmurray 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Archive

I just archived a bunch of discussion, mostly from almost a year ago. I hope I've done it right (I've never archived before). The link is at the top. --Jbmurray 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Film

User:AlexCovarrubias, please don't simply revert edits that have been changed in good faith, with good reason, and accompanied by discussion. See above for my discussion of the various "cultural topics." Meanwhile, among the other various problems with the material you put back is the POV (and inaccurate) claim that Mexican golden eran movies "are the greatest examples of Latin American cinema." But above all, a little discussion would come in handy. --Jbmurray 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Once more... Please stop the kneejerk reversion. While I would hardly pretend that the section film is in perfect shape (far from it), and I would more than welcome constructive proposals for further change, the version to which you're reverting 1) contains POV assertions 2) is confusing, especially in terms of a chronological account of Latin American cinema 3) is unbalanced in its attention to the various centers of Latin American film production 4) takes no account of my comments above concerning the relation between this page and both Latin American culture and Latin American cinema, plus 5) is unaccompanied by any discussion on this talk page. Please stop! --Jbmurray 07:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop you too. Why you imply that your edits are done in good faith and mine aren't? I reverted because you deleted important parts of the Mexican film industry, that was the only that had a real international impact. Mexican movies were sold to all Latin America (every Latin American know the Mexican movie actors) and Europe. Removing this is giving undue weight to the other industries. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As I say, I'm trying to produce a short, informative summary. I'm afraid your tendency is to be rather protective of any edit that seems to you to threaten Mexican pre-eminence. The Mexican cinema is certainly important, and especially so in the "Golden Age." Indeed, I have added information on Mexico in this period. But I have also tried to ensure that this section is reasonably short, balanced, coherent, and lacking POV claims. Have you any suggestions as to how to continue to improve this section? I'd love to hear them. --Jbmurray 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationalisation of articles

I support Jbmurray's rationalisation of the sections of Latin America, List of Latin American writers, Latin American literature, Latin American culture and Latin American cinema. These articles have too much overlap and a lack of objective criteria for who should be included. I have previously suggested that the list of writers in Latin America be merged into List of Latin American writers, although the suggestion has languished until now.

It certainly appears that AlexCovarrubias is taking a Mexican nationalist position at the expense of article quality. I had an unsatisfactory exchange with him back in December about his removal of several writers using a misleading edit summary. [2].-gadfium 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, gadfium. Meanwhile, it would appear that flagged articles for attention from the Wikiprojects doesn't do much. In the meantime, I've put in some effort on the "Literature" section, with the list out of the way. I wrote this rather quickly, somewhat off the top of my head (hence few dates, for instance). Further improvement welcome. But I think it's a decent start, and could also be the basis for expansion on the other pages, Latin American culture and Latin American literature. --Jbmurray 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, and to make AlexCovarrubias happy (though he's starting a long-term block), I even included Monsivais. --Jbmurray 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong defitnition?

The definition given in the article for Latin America is: "Latin America is the region of the Americas where Romance languagesare officially or primarily spoken". I think this definition needs some re-wording, since it puts Quebec into Latin America!! Quebec is a region of Americas where a Romance language (French) is primarily spoken, n'est pas?

This is addressed in the subsequent section, "Definition." The wording of the opening line used to include "strictly also French." I'll add that back for clarity. And again, read the article as a whole: when the term "Latin America" was invented, it certainly was intended to include Quebec, even if it generally does not do so any more. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
'[S]trictly in French' is not necessary, hence 'namely (i.e., primarily, but not exclusively) Spanish and Portuguese' per numerous reckonings of Latin America's constituents. In other words, some definitions of Latin America exclude areas where French is common, while none (that I know of) exclude areas where Spanish or Portuguese are prevalent. Relatedly, the inclusion of French is noted in the 'Definitions' section immediately below the introduction. Corticopia 10:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you reverted with the comment ""unencyclopedc syntax." Can you explain what you mean by that? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
jb, I've commented on your talk page. Corticopia 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you think that "namely" means "primarily, but not exclusively." It doesn't. No wonder many find the current phrase confusing. Hence I suggested "here, above all." "Above all" to mean what you're saying by "primarily." "Here" to say that it's in this context, that of the discussion of Latin America. There's no syntactical problem here. In any case, I'll try again. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, namely is correctly used -- hell, sub in specifically, particularly, or primarily. Also refer to this definition for Latin America (for example): French-speaking areas are often not included in Latin America. I cannot speak for other editors, some of whom perhaps wilfully want to include this over that, but the 'problem' is elsewhere. As well, 'here', 'here above all', or any similar syntax remains unencyclopedic and unclear (e.g., as opposed to 'there'?), and said edits really don't enhance the introduction. Anyhow, I will try again. Corticopia 06:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
"Namely: that is to say : TO WIT." Ya see, there's your problem. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And "here" means "in this context." I'll try that, if "here" is unclear to you. (I still don't have any idea about what you mean by "unencyclopedic" syntax; in any case what's at issue is not syntax but semantics, if you want to be picky.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the problem? Alternatively: that is to say (particularly), Spanish and Portuguese. Perhaps both syntax and semantics are at issue: 'here' or any combination containing it is rather unencyclopedic and does not belong in this introduction, since that sort of phrasing implies that there's another sort of context within the context of the article, which is wordiness for not what. If challenges persist/if necessary, I will dredge up and replace the intro with that from a reputable publication verbatim. Corticopia 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't get into your edit war. It continues to be baffle me what you mean by saying that "here" is "rather unencyclopedic." The point is this: the phrasing you insist upon suggests that Spanish and Portuguese are the only Romance languages. This is of course nonsense, and so from time to time some other editor comes by and points out that French is also a Romance language. You revert these edits without realizing why they are being made: which is because the formulation you insist upon is unclear. As you prefer to edit war rather than to see the problem with the wording, the problem continues. Anyhow, go plagiarize if you think that'll help! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise fully why they are being made, and your formulations have clarified nothing. Nor have you suggested wording to help clarify matters. As well, if you can't comment constructively, don't bother: your other accusations and comments, and similar ones in the future, will be given all the attention they deserve. And that's it. Corticopia 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, now. I've made a series of such constructive suggestions, while all you've done is revert. And here's yet another suggestion, but knowing you're already on three reverts I'll put it here for your examination rather than changing the page directly: "Latin America (Spanish and Portuguese, América Latina; French, Amérique Latine) is that region of the Americas where Spanish and Portuguese (both of which are Romance languages, derived from Latin) are primarily spoken. Latin America is contrasted with Anglo-America, that region of the Americas where English predominates." This is yet another way of avoiding the problem that I, as well as the other editors who've attempted to change this short paragraph, have observed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that this the definition given here is more unambiguous than the one currently in the tex. Could you please explain why you consider this unencyclopaedic Corticopia? Thanks. aryonoco 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed throughout, and you have simply suggested unencyclopedic and unclear language. How else should one deal with that? Another case in point: your most recent suggestion is, again, unclear, because it doesn't allow for the possibility of other Romance langauges (specifically, French) being included in the definition for Latin America. You also refer to LA as 'that' region of the Americas, when just 'the' [region] will do. And, hypocrisy notwithstanding, I remind you that an additional edit from you will also place you in a similar situation, and I have no intention of breaching that guideline for so minor a point or contributor. I've better things to do. Corticopia 07:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Quebec is obviously part of Latin America. Latin is a language group, not an ethnicity, as we should all know by now. Quebecois speak one of the Latin languages, thus, Quebec, just like Mexico, Brazil, and Ecuador is a part of Latin America. Wikipedia's job is presenting the facts, not the biased stereotypes presented by the media. Casey14 21:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please cite your assertion. There are a number of definitions for Latin America, some of which may only include French. Corticopia 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you want me to site? My assertion that French is a latin language? My assertion that Quebec is in the Americas? My assertion is basic knowledge, not a biased viewpoint of one member. Casey14
Casey14, read the article. Here Corticopia's right. Although in its original formulation, "Latin America" would indeed have included Quebec, today it generally does not. In short, what's important is the term's use, more than logic. Those are the facts. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

São Paulo AGAIN included among latin american capitals?

I think the capital of Brazil should appear in this article, instead of São Paulo. I know São Paulo is the most important city of Brazil in many ways, but it's an article related to Geography, so let's show Brasília instead of São Paulo, as the other pictures are from capitals of other latin american countries. Jgsodre

And who says the pictures are only capitals or just about geography, I thought the pictures were there to show the main cities. São Paulo and Mexico City are the two biggest cities in Latin American, and among the world's ten megacities. By your criteria we will have to put the 20 capitals. Anyway, if the shuffling of pictures does not stop I will call an administrator. Strictly speaking those photos are not essential to the article.Mariordo (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

On the back of my gamecube game it said "For sale, rental and use only in USA, Canada, Mexico, and Latin America." Isn't Mexico part of Latin America so why list it twice?

  • Over time places go over constant re-definition. If you look at the old Warner's Brothers (WB) cartoons with Speedy Gonzales et al. all those Cartoons used to say anything south of the Rio Grande - isn't a part of North America. Over time these things continue to get redefined and trade deals by catchy names are also what's pushing some of these re-categorizations. Governments now are pushing this idea of a "North american union" so they're getting everyone into the mindset that Mexico is on par with the United States and Canada and thus a part of North America. Just my opinion on that last part. In anotherCaribDigita 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Latin America

A group of English-language students have made a proposal to revive or improve the Latin America Portal at Portal talk:Latin America#FROM THE SOUTH WANTS TO HELP. I'm not sure if many editors watch that page, so I'm drawing attention to the proposal here. Please go there to see the proposal and discuss it.-gadfium 01:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As a synonym for South of the US?

The section on definitions needs citations and sources, particularly the following:

  1. But sometimes, particularly in the United States, the term "Latin America" is used to refer to all of the Americas south of the U.S., including also countries such as Belize, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname where non-Romance languages prevail.

SOMETIMES? When? Who in the US? Can I see some printed text? A source somewhere? more than one, would be great. The reason anyone, American or otherwise ,would use Latin America as a synonym for all of South America is because he or she doesn't know about the Guianas. These are people who probably think Brazil is a Spanish-speaking country, too. This is not a "definition" this is a misconception. It's like that term, "pique my interest." Just because everyone thinks the term is "peak my interest" doesn't make it right or definitive. Therefore I'm deleting that. Oh and the Guianas, albeit one of them is "lLatin" (French Guiana) are usually grouped with the Caribbean for historical, cultural and ethnic reasons. Arthurian Legend 12:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

12 largest cities

I think there´s a mistake in the listing of the 12 largest latin american cities, Guayaquil (Ecuador) is larger and more populated than Santo Domingo... If only capital cities are included then the headline should read 12 largest capitals not cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.145.18 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you provide us with a citation (see wikipedia policy WP:CIT)we could discuss the matter here, thanks --Andersmusician VOTE 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Largest Cities population

The population in almost every city in the list is the metropolitan population and NOT the real city population which is the only one that should be listed. We know the metropolitan area population is not the city population since the metro has various cities included. In this page i've found the list of Latin America's largest cities by city population which is the one that should be listed.[3]. L'Écolier 05:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In Latin America, unlike in many other cities in the world, the metropolitan area is considered the single city. If you ask an Argentinian the population of Buenos Aires they will answer the metropolitan population. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

about recent edits

Hi, I want to tell everybody who reads this please to summarize every edit they made on the article, it is very annoying for some to have to compare diffs between editions all the time, and then discuss major changes each time it deserves.Thanks--Andersmusician VOTE 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I specially want to point this recent edition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latin_America&diff=166801054&oldid=166797196), tell me Alex were you reverting to a previous version(if so plz link me to that one), or made a lot of new additions? thanks --Andersmusician VOTE 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cielo Estrellado

I've written to you at your talk page asking for an explanation for your reversions. It's important that you provide your reasons. SamEV 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Race

Ospinosos just removed "In contrast to most of Latin America , people of African descendant predominate in most of the neighboring Anglophone Caribbean countries" as irrelevant. But not merely was it irrelevant it was also demonstrably false, there are clearly considerably more black people in Latin America than in Anglophone America, what with an estimated 60 million in Brazil alone. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Map of Races

I removed the map, it wasn't sourced and had many dubious definitions. To mention just one, what's the supposed limit between being mainly one race or mainly another? And what's the relevance of the map? JdeJ (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me defend the map. It listed the major racial groups in each country, listing the groups in descending order by share of the population. The CIA Factbook could be used as source. I noticed nothing wrong with the definitions. SamEV (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember all the problems, but let me mention just one. Based on what definition were Argentina and Uruguay classed as "white" countries while no other country was? Looking at Puerto Rico, to take one example, it's not much less "white" than Uruguay. That's just as a concrete example, the problem is the same with every country. Where are the definitions for defining each country to a given race?? JdeJ (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The mapmaker did get the Dominican Republic wrong, as it is mostly mulatto, with whites second, and blacks third. Nor should the US be included; and anyway, whites are the largest group in every US region. But the rest of the map is in keeping with the figures published by the Factbook[4], so it's not OR at all. Now, you can, if you wish, express your disagreements with the Factbook's figures; but that's a dead end, as what matters at Wikipedia is that it is a realiable source, which we can use. And you can see the map again here. SamEV (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the later part of your statement, reliable sources are what matters. The problem is in the interpretations. Just some points to show how weak the map really is:
  • Once again, why is Puerto Rico listed as "White, Black, Mulatto" when whites make up over 80% of the population?
  • Where are even the figures for Mulattos in Puerto Rico?
  • Since when is California "Mestizo, White"??
  • And Texas "Mixed White Black"??
  • The proportion of white, black and mestizo is almos the same in Panama as in most other Central American countries, so why is it marked differently?
  • Who decided that a certain proportion should be used to define an area in one way or another? (That is original research.)
    And obviously the censuses for some countries don't separate white and mestizo while others do, making a comparison such as the map dubious. To sum it up in one short sentence : a really bad map :) JdeJ (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is a bad map, but I will point out that whites are not the majority in some regions of the US. They are a plurality in California as a whole, and a minority in some coastal regions of the state. Certainly a minority in some large cities on the East Coast, such as Baltimore, which isn't even a third Caucasian.Kww (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, and the California case only goes to show how absurd it is to even make the comparison. If a person who is defined as "white" in a census in Argentina, Colombia etc moves to California, that person won't be considered white in the US census. Since different countries defines the issue differently from each other, a comparison such as this map gets very arbitrary. JdeJ (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
JdeJ, you gave some more good reasons not to retain the map, with which I agree. I'm convinced now. But again, I already said no part of the US should have been colored in. Your assumptions about who would be considered white where don't merit much discussion.
Kww, I spoke of US regions, not US states. You can easily verify that White Americans are indeed a majority in the four regions defined by OMB[5]. SamEV (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I have made no assumption whatsoever about "who would be considered white". I've merely mentioned the well-known fact that different countries define origin in different ways.JdeJ (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You actually wrote: "If a person who is defined as "white" in a census in Argentina, Colombia etc moves to California, that person won't be considered white in the US census." Seems clear enough to me. But as it turns out, 23 million people of Argentine, Colombian, etc Latin American origins are white. Source? US Census Bureau.[6] SamEV (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That's news to me, I have read somewhere that all persons from Latin America were automatically classed as Latinos (in other words, in a separate group from "whites"). Obviously that was wrong, and it makes sense for it be wrong. Checking the census classes for myself, I see that the term they officially use is "Non-Hispanic White". Thanks for updating me on it.JdeJ (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's news to me
Really?! I must say, I'm a little shocked to learn that you didn't know that. I thought you were just being contrarian. Anyway, as you can see, Latin Americans are as diverse as the world itself. SamEV (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I didn't know. I usually try to avoid being contrarian, not very productive and I don't get any fun out of it :) Of course I knew that Latin Americans are as diverse as you can get, I personally know blonde and blue-eyed Latin Americans, mainly Indian Latin Americans, Latin Americans of African origin and so on. What I didn't know was that the US census made a difference between them, taking into account race rather than the country of their origin. I'll keep it in mind now. JdeJ (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. Buy to be more precise, Hispanics and Latinos make the distinctions themselves, as it's done via self-identification in the US. SamEV (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin America

I am brazilian and its very boring to hear every time latin america.Latin american culture , latin american literature....First because of the language i don't, like many others in my country, see strongs connections between my country and the rest of the continent.Hear in Brazil today is very difficult see brazilian teenagers hearing musics in spanish.I am a teenager.If you go to parties in Brazil your normally see the brazilian funk and the hip hop and pop (hip hop and pop in english).The people of the generation of my father for exemple like musics like rock ,pop its very difficult see someone hearing musics in spanish hear.Last year i was in cuba and i did a friend their.I notice that he heard the music of many spanish speaking countries in latin america.i thought this is nice.We don't have this option to hear music in portuguese.I think that if Portugal had in The Americas another colony we would see that country like a brother.And would be nice see someone speaking our language.But we don't see. Augusto Fontes.

European Population

Hey, I'm just adding this to point out that the percentages given in the European section aren't consistent with the table shown below. According to the table Uruguay is clearly the country with the highest White population, having 88% of Whites. Brazil is named as being the one with the highest White population but only 55% of them are White according to the table. Mexico is named as the third with the highest White population and according to the table only 9% of them are White! So yeah, what's wrong the table or the section? Can someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.0.134.49 (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That sentence refers to absolute numbers - how many millions of people - as opposed to percentages. I tweaked it. SamEV (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think something is wrong with the figures for Venezuela. 41% white? Most sources I am aware of would list it between 20% and 21%. Can someone fix it and cite where they're getting the numbers from and if they are up to date? Rafajs77 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Geography

I think this page is lacking a geography section or at least a link to one. Also this discussion page is getting quite long. LostLucidity (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page also has some screwed up geography in general. South America, Latin America, and North America are well known concepts. Then someone at Wikipedia typically comes along and out of their dreamworld and decides it's time to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.114.140 (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

City Order

Sorry to add to this long discussion page, but is there a rhyme or reason to they way the photos of Latin America's major urban centers are arranged? I ask because the order changes almost daily, almost as if people were just putting their own favorite cities on top (most changes happen without explanantion). I even tried to arrange them alphabetically and explained this is what I was doing and it was reversed just a few hours later. If not alphabetical, then maybe by population, or GDP, I don't know, but the changing around on personal whim is very unprofessional. Rafajs77 (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did tried to set a criteria unsuccessfully, as other editors did try too. I think is time to call an Administrator to ban these anonymous editors, this pic game is not only childish but it is wasting Wiki disk memory with unnecessary entries in the history log. Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to reorder the pictures according the most important economies or cities, (Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile.)

--Fercho85 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do other areas do? Or better yet, the MOS? – Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please let’s keep the editing civilized. There's no need for sarcastic comments on the edit descriptions such as the ones I’ve seen lately.
Yes, newbies make mistakes but let’s not forget that all of us, at some point were newbies too. So please don't bite the newcomers.
The last edit by an anonymous user, which was almost blindly reverted, attempted to place Santiago above Belo Horizonte, and while I see that the reference has it that way, upon further review of the articles List of largest cities in Brazil and Demographics of Belo Horizonte I see that both of them, list the population of that city at almost 2.5 million, whereas the Metropolitan at under 5.5 million people. What’s more interesting is that both of these figures are corroborated by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics.
On the other hand, Santiago has approximately just above 5 million in the city alone and, a little over 7 million people in the Metropolitan area. So either way we look at it, Santiago is bigger than (at least in terms of population) than BH.

So should we keep the current order despite the evident contradictory information, or perhaps should we change them and list them according the statistics given by each government?

Likeminas (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, must you be so mealy-mouthed? If you have a criticism of my actions, say it plainly. I can handle being criticized, if done civilly.
I reverted the previous editor sightedly, pretty much: I reverted a similar edit yesterday, but before I did, then, I checked the source, to see whether the info had changed or not. It had not. Therefore, the anon's edit did not conform to the source and was revertable. The anon cited no source whatsoever.
I added the source in the first place, because certain people were putting their favorite city ahead of others and giving no hint as to what the basis of these constant changes were.
I couldn't care less what city order is ultimately used, so long as good sources are used. But the unsourced changes, I assume you agree, cannot prevail over sourced information. Or do you not agree?
Lastly, if, as I suspect, you're criticizing my last reversion: what was sarcastic or uncivil about my edit summary? Is it not obvious that people who go around trying to make their countries look good by changing the facts about it only succeed in creating a bad reputation for their countrimen? They make themselves look like a bunch of POV-pushers, who can't handle the truth and seek to change it to suit their own wishes. Their actions backfire, as they only draw negative attention and hurt their own country's image. It's unfortunate that, lately, we've had so much of this in connection with facts and figures for Chile. I won't hold it against all Chileans, though. But will others?
Anyway, I suggest you check various sources and give us a mini-report. SamEV (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SamEV you don’t need to give little “slaps on wrist” and say; bad boy you are not improving your country’s reputation with such edits.
See. People have done such things, still do and probably will continue to behave that way. So why even bother writing unnecessary stuff about their characters? Just save it!
What I think it, ought to be done on those cases is just check the sources, and if appropriate revert the changes with a simple, concrete, to-the-point description of why you’re doing so and lastly write a concise message on their talk page.

I also don’t care much what city goes first last or in the middle, as long as it’s accurate and verifiable. Nor I care about silly favoritisms, nationalistic ideologies or any of that kind of stuff.
If I see an unreliable, not verifiable and POV pushing editing for or against Chile or any other country for that matter, I’d revert it myself, as I have done several times before.

Now you ask me; ’’the unsourced changes, I assume you agree, cannot prevail over sourced information. Or do you not agree?’’

No.
Sourced information that is evidently WRONG should not prevail. That’s what I could definitely agree on.

Likeminas (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"SamEV you don’t need to give little “slaps on wrist” and say; bad boy you are not improving your country’s reputation with such edits."
Well of course I don't have to. But if it's true, appropriate, and I feel like it, I do it.
"People...will continue to behave that way. So why even bother..."
Don't concern yourself over it. I'm prepared to continue reminding them.
""Sourced information that is evidently WRONG should not prevail. That’s what I could definitely agree on."
Then produce your evidence. Until then, you have zero right to remove a reliable source. I'll revert your unsourced change. If you persist, I'll seek admin help. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)



You go ahead and keep biting the newbies and attacking their character. That’s your call, but then again, such a behavior is uncivil as per wikipedia’s etiquette and highly discouraged.

Now I see some intransigence on your part, despite the clear information I provided above regarding the inconsistency of the source you seem to regard as infallible.
Each article regarding the demographics of the cities listed has sourced (and much more reliable) information and statistics on the number of people that live either within the city borders alone and metropolitan areas. Once again I will revert your edit as it is based on a unreliable source with erroneous information.

Likeminas (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you did it again.
Last chance, Likeminas, because you don't seem to have understood.
You can say, you can even demonstrate, that the source is wrong for one of those cities. But that gives you no right to remove the source for the others, leaving the list entirely unsourced. See WP:V for more. The fact is, that source provides verifiability, on which Wikipedia insists even above 'truth'.
Your claim that the source is "wrong" remains unfounded. The fact is, that even though IBGE itself gives a different figure, that figure corresponds to an earlier year; in fact, it corresponds to two earlier years. The World Gazeteer's figure is the calculation for 2009,[7] while the IBGE figure is the population in 2007.
We thus have two reliable sources which differ. That's common. But they're both reliable, and the matter should be resolved without prejudice to either. In light of that, we ought to leave both cities out until all this is sorted out. I'm thus cutting down the list to 6, but more importantly, I'm restoring your very clearly policy-violating removal of a reliable source.
Please do not revert again, as I'll immediately file a WP:3RR report if you do. Please read about WP:3RR if, since you seem to say that you're a newby, you don't know what it refers to (in summary, it states: you cannot revert 4 times in a 24-hour period). SamEV (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That was excellent timing, Likeminas.
The source is reliable and the order checks out. I'll leave it, even if it isn't as up-to-date as the World Gazeteer. SamEV (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
uffff! I was almost sweating thinking, you wouldn't like it,yet, I'm glad you did.
I hope the World Gazeteer will forgive us for preferring the UN's data over him.
Enjoy your editing Sammy. Likeminas (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Did it again. I can't stand erroneous information, can you?
It's quite amusing to see that you prefer an unknown website's estimate over current hard cold data provided by the IBGE. I guess that website, being so reliable, yet lacking even relevance to have its own Wikepedia page, must have its merits, in order to be taken more seriously than the IBGE. That's indeed a very reliable approach sammy.
Anyway, you wanted sources? There you have them.
I have provided not only one source, but two. One of them by the UN department of economic and social affairs.
Hopefully you'll like them as much as the gazetteer.

Last but not least, be mindful that uncivil behavior, bullying of newbiews such as this one [8] and intensifiers in commentary like; you know, anon, you're not helping Chile's image with such edits [9] can, and will be reported to Wikipedia for review. Likeminas (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"uffff! I was almost sweating thinking, you wouldn't like it"
I believe you.
"It's quite amusing to see that you prefer an unknown website's estimate over current hard cold data provided by the IBGE"
The UN's figure is rounded at 5.6 million. The World Gazeteer's figure is 5 564 338, and the figure attributed to IBGE is 5,597,945. So tell me, Likeminas, you perceive a problem exactly where in those figures? Do the latter two sources' figures not round up to 5.6 million? Hmm?
You speak of erroneous info. Thing is, in the process of 'correcting' the list, you were unsourcing it. You see, Wikipedia sort of values sources, as I told you. Now while the World Gazeteer is not as reputable a source as the UN, when I added the former, I was just trying to make sure there was a source against which to compare the edits of POV-pushers. In the back of my mind was a 'note to self' to change the source when I could. As with many things, I hadn't got around to it. Thanks for finding that source. I appreciate it.
Lastly, Likeminas, if you find anything at all to report in what I did or said, report me. Be mindful that you could be reported for unfounded accusations and sanctioned for making vexatious, meritless reports. And btw, that was a very strident post by you. Please observe civility. Newby or not, you're not exempt. SamEV (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)



The problem I perceived and that has been conclusively corroborated by at least three prominent sources, is that the BH metropolitan population is smaller than Santiago’s, Simple as that.
By leaving BH above other city, that clearly most sources except the erroneous one you insisted on keeping, you’re actually doing a disservice to Wikipedia, thus not improving it. I’m sorry but, erroneous sourcing information is by no means any better than no-source at all.
It's important to note that the section listing the biggest urban agglomeration has wiki-links to each city for a reason.
I personally, see no need to double source the section if it’s already clearly referenced in the corresponding demographics section of each article, which by the way, can be easily corroborated by just clicking on the city of your interest. In the end decided to source it, just to avoid another confrontation with you discernible intransigent attitude.

I find it interesting that you assume the guy who changed the order was trying to push his POV, especially when you had a "note to self" perceiving that the source might not be accurate. Now we know he was not POV pushing. And his input was accurate.
I think it’s important to remember we must assume good faith. On that particular edit, perhaps, you had your golden chance to further review the source and compare it to some other ones, known to have a better reputation. Yet, you chose to just revert the edit and attack the guy’s character instead.

I must remind you that so far I haven’t made any unsubstantiated accusations about your behavior with IP’s. It’s all recorded and I provided links that show it. The first time I saw your edit summary where you mockingly wrote to an IP: reverting ... wishful thinking (harsh, but true, sadly) [10] I let it go without saying anything, because I thought, perhaps you weren’t having a good day and it was just a minor slip-up, but now you that you did it again, I see it might have not been just an occasional thing, but rather a pattern.
So, once again, I kindly ask you not to bite the newcomers, behave in a civilmanner and unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Lastly, avoid those intensifying edit summaries, that bare little (if any) relevance to the article itself.
Thank you.
Likeminas (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"I’m sorry but, erroneous sourcing information is by no means any better than no-source at all."
Well, WP:V would seem to differ. I'll take the policy.
Ah, so the source wasn't wrong about Belo Horizonte, you acknowledge. Very nice of you. You know what else it wasn't wrong about? Santiago's population. The Gazeteer was providing the Santiago proper area. They indicate that metro areas' names are in bold; "Santiago" was not bolded. The info they provided for Santiago was correct, it just wasn't the datum we needed. Neither you nor I caught it then. The fact is that your claim that the Gazeteer got any of these figures wrong remains as unproven as ever. And isn't it interesting that the second source you added to the article, mongabay.com, directs readers to the Gazeteer for more cities? Now let me ask you this: what happened to that 7 million Santiago metro claim you made? I don't find it in any of the sources you cited. Are your sources wrong, then?
"I personally, see no need to double source the section if it’s already clearly referenced in the corresponding demographics section of each article, which by the way, can be easily corroborated by just clicking on the city of your interest."
Yeah, because it's important that readers be made to wade throught 10 different articles just to confirm a list of the ten largest metro areas, even though we could provide a link to a single source. How 'user-friendly' of you.
"In the end decided to source it, just to avoid another confrontation with you discernible intransigent attitude."
Good decision, right in the nick of time, as you can see, because I was about to undo your removal of the source and report you if you removed it again.
FYI, I don't assume that any source necessarily is accurate. No source is infallible. Who's to say that the UN document doesn't contain a typo or two? Are you?
I meant to get a more reputable source, like the UN. In fact, I may have used the 'growun-up' version of that document you provided before, in the Demographics of the United States lead.
"On that particular edit, perhaps, you had your golden chance to further review the source and compare it to some other ones, known to have a better reputation. Yet, you chose to just revert the edit..."
The burden was on him/her. S/he was changing sourced info and not explaining, not citing any source. As Jimmy Wales put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."WP:V
"I see it might have not been just an occasional thing, but rather a pattern."
Feel free to prove it. Report it if you find it.
I feel no need to reply to the rest of your lecture, which is nothing more than a continued attempt to besmirch the nature of my actions and my character. (You know, all that 'biting the newbies' stuff, etc). But, at least you were a little bit less uncivil this time.
Finally, don't count on my giving anyone the benefit of the doubt over similar edits. You can report that, too. SamEV (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So you’re equating aggressively removing unsourced claims with mockingly reverting them?
Hmmm, I wonder if Jimmy Wales also endorses your humble approach.
In any case, yes. You will be reported if I see you behaving as if you own this article or if keep ridiculing people’s edits.
Likeminas (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I told that IP (whom I can't help suspecting of being you, given how you defend its actions) of engaging in "wishful thinking" because its edit was one of a string of similar ones. The user was determined to show Chile whiter than it is, facts be damned.
Yet again: Report whatever the heck you want, Likeminas. SamEV (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


The IP was me? Ha! Nice accusation. Yet totally unsubstantiated and basically could also be reported. But why bother? Unlike others, I don't have the time to be in Wikipedia 24/7
I brought up that silly comment of yours, just because you did it again with another (different) IP. And most likely you have done it before, and it does show a trend. A trend that if not addressed on time can just get nasty and out of control.
I told that IP (whom I can't help suspecting of being you, given how you defend its actions) of engaging in "wishful thinking" because its edit was one of a string of similar ones. The user was determined to show Chile whiter than it is, facts be damned
See, I just checked that IP’s contributions and he has only 3, of which 2 are meant to make Chile whiter.
You call that a string of a string edits, determined to show Chile whiter??
I personally, don’t give a flying (fill in the blank) if you hate Chileans or just get a kick when you make fun of them. That’s your call and it’s perfectly fine with me.
Just don’t bring those silly comments into Wikipedia. There’s no place for them here.
You just don’t mock people’s edits, regardless of whom it is.
Even if it was me, which is just a stupid thing to say, because I don’t need to hide and I’ve publicly spoken (at least twice) about the racial make-up of Chile in this very same talk page and during the discussion of Argentina's genetic studies.
So, yeah sammy. You need to relax a bit and take it easy. Perhaps, this is good sign of you needing a break from Wikipedia.
Likeminas (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Really, Likeminas? You noticed an "accusation" in my statement? Now why is that?
"Unlike others, I don't have the time to be in Wikipedia 24/7"
Neither do I: [11]. I doubt anyone does. Even the most dedicated WP'ian would need to sleep at some point. I would assume.
One time should be plenty. It was reverted that first time and the IP should have gotten the message. Nevertheless, it happened more than a few times, by other IP's from a similar block; that's what I recall, anyway. But again: twice is plenty.
No, nope. Don't hate Chileans. Nice strawman, though!
Give it up, Likeminas. If you have anything actionable on me, do something about it already and quit your whining. SamEV (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
K Sammy you win.
I guess that IP did deserve from a little whipping from you.
Keep up the god work!
Likeminas (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern America

I think somewhere in the article, specifically the introductory sentence, should mention that Latin America and Northern America are the two cultural/economic halves of America as a whole. M.nelson (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

In the chance that they actually care to explain themselves, I've asked both of the last IP addresses about their editing habits.[12][13] If they continue, you can message me and I'll semi-protect the article so they can't play with it. They have to learn to explain their problems not just play games. – Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

I thinks 52% is an underestimate for Mestizos in Mexico, and 30% is an over estimate for AmerIndians. Full blooded AmerIndians only make up 12% of the Mexican population. Perhaps, if the time is not to change, someone can clarify the disrepencies? Being predominantly Indian doesn't mean you're not Mestizo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.10.220 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Belize

Recently, there's been a user that is making changes to the article that puts Belize grouped in equal consideration as all the other countries that are traditionally considered Latin America. Rather than get involved in an edit war, I thought it'd be a good idea to discuss it here. Personally, I thought the way the article was before, as even the map indicates that it was considered different than the rest of the countries. In all my Latin American studies and through Spanish studies in college, Belize was never grouped together with the rest of Latin America (my sister-in-law's mom comes from there too and doesn't consider it as such). I realize that there are a lot of Spanish speakers there, but not only is the official language only English, but creole there is mainly English based. Also, Spain did claim the region, but they never actually had full dominance over the natives and couldn't successfully establish colonies; that's how the British were able to make a claim (even though there are even some border disputes today). I know that different sources may conflict, but I thought the previous version did a good job at explaining that it sometimes is, but made the distinction, which with all the recent edits, it doesn't. Kman543210 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the user that made the edits. I am Belizean. The fact is that Belize is geographically and culturally Latin American. It borders Mexico and Guatemala and is a Central American country. Latin America does not mean Spanish America (Haiti and Brazil are both Latin American countries, as are the ABC islands, as is Puerto Rico, where English is also an official language), but even if it rritory and was not successful in establishing settlements; that's a big reason that Great Britain was able to establish colonies. Kriol in Belize is also English-based, not Spanish-based.
Most sources provided and that I have seen do not include Belize in Latin America, and we have to rely on sources, not anecdotes. You're right that due to immigration, Spanish and Latin American culture is influencing Belize more and more. Eventually, it may be considered part of Latin America, but I haven't seen the inclusion of Belize yet in all my Latin American and Spanish studies. Sometimes it is included, but I thought the article already did a good job explaining that before the edits. Kman543210 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion. The fact is that there are people in Belize, like your your sister-in-law's mother, that do not speak Spanish. Many of these people wear their English as a badge of honor. However, national statistics show that as a percentage of the population, these people form a very small group. There are other Latin American countries with non Spanish/Portuguese speaking populations, particularly indigenous groups. This does not mean that they are not Latin American. What I mention here about Belize is not anecdotal, it is fact. Look at the current census data from the country. Look at the demographics. Lets look at facts, not anecdotes. Geographically, Belize is in Latin America. This is not even debatable. Culturally it is as well. I do understand the confusion because of its British Colonial past, but two things (1) the demographics don't lie and (2) other Latin Americans have non-Spanish or Portuguese colonial pasts as well. I mentioned Haiti and the ABC islands in addition to Puerto Rico. It was mentioned that Spain did not have "full" control over Belizean territory. That's because Spain colonized it along with half of America. Spain didn't have "full" control over most of the territories and peoples it colonized, which is precisely what led to the independence, or loss to other imperial powers, of most of its American conquests. Unlike most of the English Caribbean, Belize is not just geographically Latin American, it is culturally Latin American. Most of its cities do not have English names, they have Spanish and Maya names. The main religion in Belize is catholicism, with protestant churches on the rise (as it is in other Latin American states). The biggest ethnic group is the Mestizo group, Belizeans of mixed Spanish and Amerindian descent. There is also a significant Maya and Garifuna population. Spanish is spoke more than any other language as a first language and most of the population is bilingual or trilingual. These are all facts. Facts that can easily be verified. According to census data from as far back as the 1980s when Belize became an independent country, even then, the majority of Belizeans spoke Spanish. The census estimated that in 1980 that some 62 percent of all Belizeans were bilingual or trilingual (see: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bz0034)). This during a time when Belize just got its independence from the British. The official numbers of Spanish speakers has only increased over the past 25+ years of Belizean independence. Data from 1992 shows that Spanish was spoken more as a first language than any other language, including Kriol/Creole (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BZ). Today, data from the latest census, 2000, shows that Spanish is spoken more as a first language than any other language and that is prevalence as increased. Spanish, Kriol and Maya Ketchi are all spoken as first languages by more of the population than English. Here are the numbers: English 3.9% (official), Spanish 46%, Creole 32.9%, Mayan languages 8.9%, Garifuna 3.4% (2000 census). I don't think the article previous article did a "good job" at explaining any of this, which is why I made the edits. To the contrary, it mentioned Belize alongside the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago stating that "they are not culturally or linguistically Latin American". This is inaccurate, as Belize is not like those counties at all. None of those places have significant Spanish speaking populations let alone ones that are as great a Belize's, where they form the largest group. Non of those countries boast bilingualism and trilingualism as Belize does. My arguments are based on facts and not on what one person from a particular country is telling me. It was mentioned that there are Spanish Studies and Latin American Studies that do not mention Belize. It is something that I have noticed in my studies and work as well. However, the fact is that most classes and text wont' cover it, not because it is not Latin American, but because it is a tiny country of only 300,000 people. However, at the same time, I would find it extremely hard t believe that any serious academic of academic text of Latin American studies would argue that Belize is not in Latin America. If "most sources provided" don't include Belize as being part of Latin America, then I would really suggest looking for better sources. Check out Modern Latin America by Thomas E. Skidmore and Peter H. Smith . Their and others' understanding of Latin America includes Belize and nowhere do they make a point of not including Belize as part of Latin America or grouping it with the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. I find it hard to believe that I am even having to make these arguments to people editing a Latin America page, but I don't mind doing it if it raises awareness. Amilito (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2008 (GMT)

Don't forget too that Belize was a British Colony at the time when the term "Latin America" was already established. At that time most British territories in the Americas were still under British control. (Less Canada and the United States.) I mean the majority of British Colonies south of the United States have only started gaining their indep. since the early 1950s... Don't forget the West Indies federation collapsed in 1962 when Jamaica left. And Jamaica was the first to start the trend for Independence in the region.... Jamaica was followed by Trinidad and Tobago that year. Then four years later was Guyana and Barbados. Then some years later Dominica, and Saint Lucia etc. (and some others in the OECS states) and the Bahamas etc... Belize is still recent... When the term "Latin America" was devised by Napoleon it was partly developed to provide a fraternity (of sorts) among the non-British areas of that part of the Americas... E.g. Spanish, French and Spanish countries...

Also this current practice of recognizing a territory as semi-autonomous is still only a recent idea. Only the lest decade or so, pretty much since the UN started their agenda for de-colonisation and looking at every piece of rock as the captain of their own ship. Prior to that, territories were widely seen as satellites for whatever political capital they hail under... E.g. for example Martinique and Guadeloupe today for example are still a part of France and aren't really considered "Latin American" yet Haiti (is independent) and somewhat is considered to be a part of Latin America. So it is two pronged. When the term Latin America was created the British areas south of the US weren't independent. And secondly the vary term "Latin America" was created to bee used for non-British ruled areas. You can easily Google "the term Latin America" and see the history behind that phrase. CaribDigita (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge of your country. The language statistics are definitely not in dispute, as I have seen the percentages; that's why I acknowledged that there is a majority Spanish-speaking population now (just not "vast"). I think maybe a better word choice would be that Belize has not always been "traditionally" included with the rest of Latin America. Don't get me wrong; I don't mean any disrespect to Belize and in all my studies on Latin America, Belize was mentioned because it's in the area. Also, there's no dispute that Latin America does not mean Hispanic America; all countries traditionally with Latin-based colonies and languages have been included (Spanish, French, Portuguese). I think the problem is that the sources that are used in this article do not back up that Belize is "always" included. Those bullet points were taken directly from a source, so if you change the definition, it no longer matches the source. If Belize is now always included in the definition of Latin America, then there needs to be new reliable sources used and maybe a small sentence explaining the change in Belize over the last century with an increase in the Spanish-speaking population. Another source not used in the article that I'm looking at right now (latinamericans.com) does not list Belize with the rest of the "traditional" Latin American countries, but it is mentioned under the "sometimes" paragraph. I know this might sound silly, but wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Although, if Belize is truly now a considered part of Latin America in all definitions, then there should be plenty of sources out there. Kman543210 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you again as well. The discussion is good. Belize may have not been considered a "traditional" part of Latin America. This is understandable, as it only just recently became a country. It used to be called British Honduras and has only been an independent nation called Belize since 1981. Under the past circumstances, it is easy to see why the territory may have been overlooked in popular and academic discourses on Latin America, as it was a a British colony. Today, it is not longer a British Colonial outpost and is now an independent country. It should be, and is, looked at differently than it was in the past. Here are two very credible sources that include Belize as part of Latin America: (1) Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History by E. Bradford Burns and Julie A. Charlip; and (2) Modern Latin America by Thomas E. Skidmore and Peter H. Smith. These are two very well researched books that have gone through many editions and the authors are universally regarded as experts at the top of their field, Latin American Studies. I think there is an over reliance on websites. I wouldn't really consider latinamericans.com as a credible academic resource. The fact is the the average person, anglophone and hispanic has not ever heard of Belize and knows very little about it. This is true even in the Caribbean. I often have to explain things like this. Thanks for helping me understand about wikipedia. This was my very first edit. Amilito (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (GMT)

This generally had been the point-of-view of the "Caribbean" (according to the English Speaking Caribbean.) 50 Frequenty Asked Questions on Caribbean Language - by the Society for Caribbean Linguistics CaribDigita (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Well, my opinion is Belize has nothing to see in the concept of "latin America". Once again this concept is not a geographical one but cultural. Latin American countries can only be the ones that were colonies of the latin nations of Europe such as Spain, Portugal and France, who inheritated the languages and other characteristics. Belize was a British colony (Britain = a Germanic country) and not a latin one, so it is part of Anglo-America, not latin-America. The fact of having mayan cultures, being close to Mexico and Guatemala doesn't change anything - since what meakes these similarities with those countries and belize is the native herency, and not the latin One. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabb leb (talkcontribs) 09:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)