Talk:Latin America/Archive 4

Puerto Rico

Shouldn´t Puerto Rico be considered part of Latin America? I don´t see its data in any chart. Joevicentini (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Subdivisions- Mario Sambarino

Now I am not questioning his work, but I don't think this information regarding subdivisions in Latin America should NOT be in top of the page because of what one person believes. It can be put in the Demographics section as a side note possibly. Let me know what you all think? Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, sections should be moved down. Also, he's not a reputable source. His study is very obscure and highly different than other works. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gini Index

I wrote the new Gini Coeficent in the page and someone deleted it... I think is quite unfair because I spent a lot of time searching for the new Coeficent. Moreover I don't even understand why this person deleted the current information, I mean, it's always the best thing having the newest information, isn't?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fettch (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and Brazil as countries with Criollo/ white majorities

At the moment, the article contradicts itself. In the Criollos/ whites sub-section of the "Difference between race and ethnicity" portion of the article it says "Whites make up the majority of the population of Argentina, Costa Rica and Uruguay, and are also a significant demographic group in Brazil, Cuba, Chile, Puerto Rico". However, in the table for the Ethnic distribution section it states that Puerto Rico is 74.8% white and Brazil is 53.8% white, thus whites constitute a majority, not just a "significant demographic group" in both of these countries. In an effort to be consistent, I have changed the wording of the Criollos/ whites section to include Puerto Rico and Brazil as countries with a white majority. Feel free to change it back if you find a source that contradicts this, however at the moment the source for the table is the mos comprehensive provided.

Emperornik (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the table should be remove entirely as it confuses the issue more than it helps. For example, peer reviewed genetic studies have shown that a majority of Puerto Ricans have amerindian mitochondrial DNA and European Y chromosomes, making them genetically mestizos. Yet the chart lists Puerto Rico as having no mestizos. What is true is that a majority of Puerto Ricans self identify as white or criollo. Situations like this repeat themselves over and over again across the region. There is no workable classification system for the race or ethnic origin of the people of the region unless you focus on only 1)self identification or 2)genetics, and be very clear what you are focusing on. Even then, a table such as the one I continue to remove does not follow provide useable information, because the categories that people use to define themselves very greatly from country to country. People will respond differently depending on the situation and the exact wording of the question as well. The use of Criollo in many countries now varies greatly from its original use as a person born in the Americas to parents of european descent. In fact, in Puerto Rico, many people of visible african anscestry self identify as criollo, and trigueno, but when the us census taker comes around, they choose white or other. The table gives those without other knowlege of the reason a very misleading impression of the population, and so I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.66.235 (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Inequality and poverty

Considering that the majority of the countries have high HDI, and that there is only one country (Haiti) in a severe situation, I guess that this topic is just supporting the old stereotype of Latin America. In fact, Brazil is today one of the BRIC economies, Argentina has a very high standard of living, such as Chile (a country that has been growing very fast since 90´s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.155.102 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic barrios

Should Hispanic neighborhoods in anglophone countries in North America be considered part of Latin America or not? The question came to mind when I pointed out that the Southwestern US was once part of the Spanish Empire, which led me to draw Florida into the exclusion as well. Also, there's Quebec, which is French speaking, and I noticed that places such as Miami, Los Angeles, and New York have large Spanish speaking communities, so Spanish might be prevalent in some of those neighborhoods and areas. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Asian neighborhoods in anglophone countries in North America be considered part of Asia or not???South Bay (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin America is not a continent, it's a cultural entity comparable to other spheres of influence. Is Asia really a cultural entity? Aaker (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Arabic neighborhoods in Anglophone countries in North America be considered part of Middle East or not???

These deffitions are roughly deffinitions, heuristic devices for large socio-cultural areas, in order to make that generalizations, exceptions cannot be taken in consideration.--Leonardo Alves (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"White" Latin Americans

The image labeled "Vicente Fox A white Latin American." has a very racist comment. It indicates that there are little or no "white" Latin Americans. Also, the term "white" is not appropriate and even offensive. I suggest "Caucasian" be used instead. Melara... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

The term "white" is official designation for caucasians in some countries. In Brazil, the color or race options in the census form are: White, Black, Brown (Pardo), Yellow, Indigenous. If calling someone white is racist and offensive in your country, I'm sorry but it is not so everywhere.--Leonardo Alves (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quebec

Shouldn't Quebec be part of Latin America? Or shouldn't it at least be mentioned as 'sometimes included'? Zazaban (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is already dealt with in the third point of the 'Etymology and definitions' section. And, to date, no citation has been included to corroborate its inclusion. IMO, no other treatment is required. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics table

SamEV recommended that is should explain my reasoning for using the CIA numbers. They are more recent and adding them to the table will in no way damage the outcome of the other nations. It will effect the total percentage but this is because it is more accurate for Mexico in particular so it can work because there is no binding date that all the countires surveys were taken anyways. I hope this helps. Rahlgd (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I said you should make sure that your change doesn't hurt the table.

Somewhere I read that the CIA's Mexico numbers are not recent at all, but are instead based on a census taken in the 1920s. And from what I can tell, based on sources I have at hand, the CIA seems to have used those same Mexico figures for at least two decades. Be that as it may, the CIA Factbook is a reliable source which I use a lot myself.

It seems to me that we then have two equally suitable sources whose data differ significantly. There should be no choice between them: both should be included. I suggest you include the CIA figures without removing Lizcano's, and adjust the totals accordingly. Please don't leave that task to others.

In fact, maybe the table should be modified so that the CIA's figures for all the countries are similarly included and factored in; alternatively, there should be a separate CIA table. SamEV (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a good idea. I have actually been working on a completely re-done version with updated sources which i will post when completed which hopefully can be by the end of the day. I think that for the spaces with no information instead of having a 0.0% in the spaces there should be a N/A put in it's place because countries like Chile don't have Zambo as an available choice in their survey but that doesn't mean the country has no Zambos. Also, for Brazil, not every pardo is a mulatto (some are mestizo or even zambo or mixed with asian because pardo is just the general term used for racially mixed) so we shouldn't have the pardo population percentage tagged as mulatto, rather we should have a multiracial category that mainly Brazil would fill as Brazil is far more mixed than most of the other countries. About the CIA statistics on Mexico, they have not been exactly the same for the last two decades, but they have been very similar with usually only a 1 to 3 percentage point difference, usually in the Amerindian population due to a phenomenon occurring in Mexico's indigenous population. In most societies when people become more developed their birth rates lower, but for Mexico's indigenous population they have been maintaining they're high birthrate even as they attain higher incomes and move to urban or suburban environments. Meaning that Mexico's indigenous population is increasing with new development and wealth even though historically based common ideas of demographics say that they were originally projected to decrease. According to the the demographics of Mexico from the CIA world fact book in 1997 the racial make up of Mexico was 28% Amerindian, 11 % White, 59% Mestizo and 1% other (mostly Black although it seems like there should be more Asian too). Rahlgd (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Those are good ideas. SamEV (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rahlgd, I was in the middle of doing a partial revert of that edit you did 1.5 days ago when Alex beat me to it and went one better: he reverted your edit completely. There are several issues. You seemed to have picked from among the sources the ones which matched your POV. That's contrary to the whole point of this, which was to be NPOV by leaving Lizcano; you were supposed to add the CIA figures. Those other sources will have to be examined one by one. You got Chile completely wrong: the source says that 65% is 'predominantly white mestizos, yet you included that 65% as white! And where did you find those Salvadoran percentages? I recall from reading the source you gave back on the 29th that it only provides the Indigenous percent (12); did you obtain the others by subtracting that 12? That's OR.

And so on and so forth. SamEV (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please learn about reusing references. SamEV (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Raghld it is now very obvious to me that after pushing "nahuatl" and other amerindian issues in Mexico-related articles, you want to continue your "work" here in this article. You have a very biased approach to Mexico's mestizos and whites. You want to booster amerindians and their things, something is not welcomed in Wikipedia in general. Undue weight is a firm rule so you must follow it. You only want to use the CIA source because it falsely states that Mexico has 30% of amerindians, which is not true. Other sources far more qualified such as anthropological references, always say that amerindians are around 10-13%. Stop your attitude, it is not constructive. Any boosterism won't be tolerated and will surely be reverted. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 11:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, the racist idiot who intepreted the racial composition of Chileans who came to the conclusion that 52% of Chileans are of pure European descent after misinterpreting some University study, has had his racist rubbish spread to all articles were the ethnic origins of the Chilean population lie. The twit who has publish the ridiculous information have misinformed others of the truth. Most Chileans, indeed around 90% DO have some, if not a lot of Amerindian blood. However, the ration might bee 52% European and 44% Amerindian in the average Chilean, even if the percentage is very small amongst the upper classes. However, most Chileans, not even half, are anywhere near pure European-descent. The original upper-class married Incan princesses and cacique's daughters, and the sebsequent Spaniards and Eruopean immigrants intermarried amongst the descendents. Wikipedia should portray the truth, not some racists' fantasy based on ignorance and proved by biased university research.86.160.120.47 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused what you mean. You say that i'm racist against amerindians because I said that Chile is 65% white? And then you say i have an agenda against whites because i said that Mexico's indigenous population is 30%? All information i have come across has stated that this is true (regarding Mexico). If anyone has an agenda it is you, Covarrubias, you are the one who went and falsely inflated Mexico's white population in numerous articles dsepite the sources clearly indicating that you were wrong. I have seen sources that say that Mexico has more indigenous than Whites but not the other way around. I have just heard you say this. You blatantly added false uncited information to make it look like there were more whites so if anyone has an agenda it is you Covarrubias. I'm sorry if i offended anyone with the information i posted, i got it from trying to find the most recently updated statistcs on each country. If you think the information is incorrect than I can simply use the CIA as the source for all of them, while it's not the most recent source it is more recent than the informaton currently being used. I'm also so sick of you saying than i have some sort of personal agenda, Covarrubias everytime i say something in good light about amerindians you don't agree with. It seems like you just have some problem with amerindians and don't even start saying i'm trying to promote some pro-nahuatl agenda, i'm not even half indigenous. I'm a quarter Japanese, half White (dutch, spanish, german and some italian) and only a quarter amerindian and of that i'm not even Nahuatl i'm Zapotec so just stop these personal attacks. You are the one that constantly removes Indigenous things from the Mexico article and tried to say they were'nt culturally relavent. Also you still never answererd for your lying and blatant manipultion of data in the ethnography section in the Mexico article. So don't be such a hypocrite, it is not wanted here nor is your rude, condescending attitude. Rahlgd (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you, Covarrubias again tried to inflate the white popultion by changing it from 16% to 17% thats just childish. Please don't do it again and stop inserting theses small lies that you think we won't notice. Rahlgd (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

City GDP table has an error

The description of GDP for the Largest Economic cities section says, "GDP figures are estimated and expressed in USD, using purchasing power parity (PPP)exchange rates:" This is how GDP is usually described in economics textbooks and various reports.

However that actual number for Sao Paulo in the table is $25,675. This is waaay to high for Brazil. Checking the referenced source: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_impressao.php?id_noticia=1288 on table 10, I see that is shows the "Produto Interno Bruto" or PIB (Portugese for GDP) is R$ 25,675 in 2006.

So not to rub it in, but that 25,675 number is wrong at least three ways: It is 4 years old, it is in Brazilian currency instead of USD, and it is not adjusted for PPP.

I didn't check the other figures in the table.

MountainMeadows (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) MountainMeadows

Yes, those Sao Paulo figures are for July 1, 2006. The exchange rate on that date was 2.1640 reais per US dollar,^[1] so those R$25,675 come out to 11,865 dollars.

I tried to verify a few more cities' numbers, but one reference was dead (Mexico City's), and the Monterrey ref is a general one, so I gave up. (References should link to the specific pages that corroborate the claims made at Wikipedia.) I tried the Buenos Aires ref, but it's possible that the reason I couldn't find what the table says is because I only skimmed the reference. The table definitely needs improvement. So I messaged the editor who recently edited the table and restored the table to a version that has fully verifiable economic figures. There's a second reference which presmably provides the population figures, but it isn't working right now. If you come across any good sources, let us know. SamEV (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC); 06:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted content

The following content was added recently, but it requires sources and copyediting.

"During much of the 19th century Latin American countries saw strifes between liberal and conservative political factions. Initially conservatives did succesfully gain power in countries like Chile, Argentina. During the second half of the 19th century some countries shifted towars liberal goverments while in some other like Mexico conservative regimes consolidated. By 1899 a large conservative-liberal war broke out and while in Colombia the conservatives won the war the Mexican Revolution that begun in 1911 wiped out an vestige of Porfirio Diaz authoritarian conservative regime."

SamEV (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, liberal-conservative was not the major contradiction in XIXth c. Argentine politics. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There was the big issue of federalism vs unitarianism. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

green text?

There's a problem with green text leaking over the page (from economy down)... the font tags seem OK but there's still a problem? Haven't been able to find the problem unfortunately, anyone else want to try?

James (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed it because of your message. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: 0% Mestizos? What?

There is a table in the article that says that the ethnic distribution in Brazil is: 53.8% White, 39.1% Mulatto, 6.2% Black and 0.4% Amerindian. There is a huge mistake in it: there is 39.1 BROWN, and not "Mulatto". In Brazil, the "Pardo" (or in English: "Brown") does NOT mean "Mulatto". It is a broader classification that includes Mulatto, Cabloco (that is, "Mestizo", or "Indian-European descendant") and in a lesser presence, the Cafuzo. That means that a Brown Brazilian will almost always be a "Caboclo" or "Mestizo" if he is from the Northeast and North and a "Mulatto" if he comes from the Southeast. For a better explanation and with sources, see Brazil#Demographics. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As currently used in the English language "mulatto" most often means "mixed race". ALL of the classifications you have given are "mixed race" categories, English simply doesn't really distinguish by which "races" are mixed. Admittedly mulatto originally only referred to the offspring of white and black unions, but other usages have been known almost since the word was first coined. Mulatto is simply the English word that most closely matches the Portuguese term "Pardo". The fact that mulatto means something else in Portuguese is irrelevant to an English language text. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Khajidha, are you actually serious? What English language are you referring to where "Mulatto" has this generally accepted meaning?

Lecen, please respect the fact that the table cites a reliable source. Your proposition of triple counting the same population is just about the worst way of fixing the problem. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the word is rarely used anyways. The broader meaning I mentioned has been present since the colonial days of the United States and has been used in that sense in the few cases I have come across recently. Maybe the more precise meaning is still in use in your region, but not in mine? The terms "mixed race", "multiracial" and "multi-ethnic" are used much more frequently. --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're making flat statements that are unsupported by any sources and are very unconvincing, Khajida. My 'region' is the United States, by the way. SamEV (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Revertion by Jesusmariajalisco

Hello there. User:Jesusmariajalisco has just reversed a lot of edits I have made to this article under the pretense that these constitute "vandalism" and that they were not properly referenced. I have to say that these two accusations are false. First they are clearly not vandalism; I'm not in Wikipedia to vandalize articles, as you can see from my contribution history. Second, all of my edits have been properly referenced with authoritative sources, such as the IMF. I ask User:Jesusmariajalisco to please take greater care when reversing any future edits to this article and to exercise caution before launching false accusations against another user. Have a good day. Pristino (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Amerindian Population in Mexico is not 13 percent

In Mexico the amerindian population is 30 percent, this number is often underestimated because in terms of preserving languages, religions, and traditions the indigenous population in Mexico is 13 percent. The actual indigenous population of mexico is 30 percent, just because a person of full-blooded amerindian descent is completely hispanicized does not mean they aren't amerindian. For example; an African american is not considered white or mulatto just because they speak english and are christian... Michael jordan was not English. Why on earth would an amerindian be denied their heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon Powe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NO mention of massacres and Genocide

There is a large mention of diseases brought by the europeans in the colonization section of this page, however, there is no mention of mass murder don by the Europeans. In a paper on world war two it would be unacceptable to not include the holocaust, so why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon Powe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The table of percentages is wrong, in Perú there are more percentages of asians that in Argentina.

Canada

You forget Canada. see Québec

A couple editors obviously have difficulty comprehending or substantiating that Quebec is generally not considered part of latin America, and push the (unsourced) concept of a 'greater' latin America, but continue to revert to an unsourced map including it while accusing of sockpuppetry. BS. If editors cannot substantiate the map, it will be removed. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicaragua's Black Population

The demographic chart is incorrect, nearly 10% of Nicaragua's population is of African descent. And more than 14% is of European descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.199.64 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with editor SamEV

I have changed recently the infobox about Brazilian ethnic groups since it says that it has 39% Mulattoes. It is clearly a mistake since it makes a confusion over the Portuguese word "Pardo" that translated to English means "Brown". However, "Pardo" is not simply a mulatto, but all mixed-race Brazilians.

This well explained in the article about Brazil (See Brazil#Demographics):

The brown population (as multiracial Brazilians are officially called; pardo in Portuguese) is a broad category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (descendants of Blacks and Indians). Caboclos form the majority of the population in the Northern, Northeastern and Central-Western regions. A large Mulatto population can be found in the eastern coast of the northeastern region from Bahia to Paraíba and also in northern Maranhão, southern Minas Gerais and in eastern Rio de Janeiro.

• Azevedo, Aroldo. O Brasil e suas regiões. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1971. (in Portuguese)
• Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopædia Britannica do Brasil, 1987. (in Portuguese)
• Coelho, Marcos Amorim. Geografia do Brasil. 4th ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 1996. (in Portuguese)
• Moreira, Igor A. G. O Espaço Geográfico, geografia geral e do Brasil. 18. Ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1981. (in Portuguese)
• Vesentini, José William. Brasil, sociedade e espaço – Geografia do Brasil. 7th Ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1988. (in Portuguese)

My edits correcting that mistake were reverted by user SamEV (Here: [2]) and the only explanation he gave was that "please desist from such ridiculous changes". I explained to him why I made the edit in his talk page (Here: [3] and not only he did not bother to answer me he also erased whati I wrote (Here:[4]) with the explanation that he was "removing nonsense".

Not only he did that, but he also, once gain, reverted my edit (Here: [5]) explaining that he was "reverting good faith but ridiculous edit again". As all can see, his behavior in at least unconstructive and at most disruptive. He has been rude withou reason and reverted my edits even though the main article about the country says otherwise. --Lecen (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I created this section to explain my edits, which are according to the main article about Brazil. In here anyone can see the sources used there to explain the demographics of that country. I made a further edit (here: [6]) explaining better what are the mixed-race groups in Brazil, although I did not change the 39,1% figure. I wrote: "Correcting figures. See talk page, section "Conflict with editor SamEV"" In this very section you can all see the sources, books used in Brazil to explain its demographics. This is not something that I took out my mind, but out of the article about Brazil. Once gain, editor SamEv reverted my edit (this is the third time, it is about time to warn him that he will be blockef for such action) (Here: [7]). To expalin his revert he simply wrote: "Restored sourced content. When you can cite a reliable source, Lecen, then *maybe* omitting the figures provided by Lizcano will be justifiable. He's a reliable source, you're not." Nowhere I "ommited" not it came out of my mind. I am trying, as polite as anyone can be, explaining why I made the edits. The other editos insist on a disruptive and rude behavior. --Lecen (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question. Can you explain why the population percentages exceed 100% as your edit here shows? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In Brazil, there are the following ethnic groups: Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians and Pardo (officially translated by IBGE as "Brown"). The "Pardo" category, unlike the others, are a group of several ethinic sub-categories, such as the Caboclos (known as "Mestizos" in Hispanic America), Mulattoes and Cafuzos (known as "Zambos" in Hispanic America). That is, the "Pardo" category group all mixed-race Brazilians. In this very article ("Latin America"), the demographics chart shows Brazil with 39% Mulattoes and 0% Mestizos and 0% Zambos. The correct should 39% Pardos. Since there is no category that group all three mixed-race classification in that chart, I thouhgt it would be better to put Mestizos, Zambos and Mulattoes all with 39%. Then I changed to a "note" (Here: [8]) where the reader would click on it and understand that the exact number of Mestizos, Mulattoes and Zambos in Brazil is unknown since the National Census does not have data about each one, only on all as one group only. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I try to change it to correct the mistake SamEV simply revert it and does not bother even to reason with me. He erased the message I wrote to him in his talk page and calls my arguments as "ridiculous". What I can not understand is that all I am doing is bringing the data that appears in the main article about Brazil (more precisely Brazil#Demographics). --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one is going to say anything about it, it leaves me with no remaining option if not to request an arbitration. Letting this go is the last thing I'll do. If it is going the easy way, it shall go by the hard way. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A piece of advice: dial down the aggressive tone.

Now, believe it or not, I'm not opposed to replacing the Lizcano figures in cases where justified. Let's work out a good way to do that in re: to Brazil, shall we? SamEV (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ow, now you want to talk? --Lecen (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, Lecen, since Sam is now willing to discuss this issue with you, it would be far more productive not to comment on the contributor, in order not to poison the well. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have patiently waited for days for some kind of stance from any of the editors around this article and nothing happened. Both editors "SunCreator" and "Salvio" simply ignored the present matter and "SamEV" made no comment so far. In fact, after seeing "SamEV" las edit where he reverted another editor's edition calling it "rv unencyclopedic crap" made me realize that I am dealing with a classic type of article ownership. I will request the opinion of other editors now, if nothing happen, I will request an arbitration. When I said that I would go to the end with my complains I wasn't kidding. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to make an outraegous comment... this artificial discussion seem to fall in the typical Brazilian racism against blacks and mulattoes. Why to add a whole new category (such as "pardo") just because some author use that classification? Seems ridiculous. I agree with SamEV. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not understand what I meant. Is not that scholars in Brazil deny the existence of mulattoes. What happens is that there are not only mulattoes, but also mestizos and zambos in Brazil. The problem is that there are no data concerning each group indivindually, only together as one group, simply called "pardo". The table that can be seen in this article says that there are 0% mestizos and 0% zambos and 39% mulattoes. That is incorrect. There are 39% mestizos, zambos and mulattoes in Brazil.

Also, saying that my concern is an "artificial discussion seem to fall in the typical Brazilian racism against blacks and mulattoes" will look like you are implying that I am a racist. That is not a constructive way to deal with a discussion in wikipedia.

P.S.: It is not "some author" who says that. If you look carefully there are five different books used as source, including the famous Encyclopædia Britannica, the most respected enciclopaedia in the world. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. Hey Alex.

Lecen, can't you come up with a better idea than triple counting the pardos? SamEV (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have. Indeed, as you can see in my last edition [9], I added a "note" tag on mestizo, zambo and mulatto category, instead of a number. So, when a reader click in any of it, he/she will learn that all three of them together represent 39% of Brazilian population. Just click on the link and you will understand it easily. --Lecen (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you find a source that breaks down the 39% into its contituent groups? I saw one in a very old book. SamEV (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just take a look at the begining of this section: "The brown population (as multiracial Brazilians are officially called; pardo in Portuguese) is a broad category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (descendants of Blacks and Indians).". --Lecen (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the percentage for each group. SamEV (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't. For unknown reasons, IBGE has never made any kind of research to how many caboclos are in Brazil, or how many mulattoes are, or how many cafuzos. It has simply grouped all of them together as one large group. Worse of all, in Brazil, the interbreed between Whites and Mongoloid Asians (that is, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, etc...) are also treated as part of the Brown group. The problem is that while IBGE calls it "Pardo", due to the fact that in 1872, when the first national census was made, the mixed-race Brazilians were descendants of Whites, Blacks and Amerindians only, experts in Brazil prefer to call it "Mestiço". However, the word "mestiço" in Portuguese does not have the same meaning as "Mestizo" in Spanish. In Brazil, "mestiço" (mixed-one), means anyone who is descendant of a mixture of different ethnic groups. That is why they group the "ainocô" (the name used to represent the descendant of whites and mongoloid asians) as part of the "mestiços". What the experts have made so far, and at most, was to tell where each group may be found in Brazil.

For example, the descendants of African slaves can be found in large numbers in areas where the economy was directed toward the foreign market, even if in different moments of Brazilian history. For example, the eastern coast of the northeast region was a great producer of sugar cane from the 16th to 17th century. The state of Minas Gerais became an important area of gold extraction from the 17th to 18th centuries. The state (then known as "captaincy") of Maranhão was a large producer of cotton in the 18th century. Rio de Janeiro and again Minas Gerais (mostly its south) were the main producers of coffe in the 19th century. All those areas have a significant African descendant population. In Maranhão there is also another type of "mestiço": the "Juçara". The Juçaras are the descendants of whites, blacks and indians.

In the other regions where the economy was not so much important, such as the remaining area of the northeast region, the central-west and the north region most od the population are the descendants of both whites and indians. The reason to why the south and São Paulo have such a large white population nowadays are due to the European immigration that occurred from 1820 until the 1970s.

Having explained that, the table can not have 39% mulattoes and 0% caboclos and 0% cafuzos as it is now.

It is amazing to see that you (in your own words) saw a table for each group (caboclo, mulatto and cafuzo) "in a very old book" but before called my remarks as "ridiculous" (several times). Why did you do that? Why did you erased my private message to you? Why you did not bother to answer me? Do you really believe that by reverting all my edits, even though they were correct and there is no big deal about them, is not the best solution to deal with a dispute in Wikipedia? --Lecen (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your aggressive tone and threats, and your opting for a multiple count of the 39% are the things I called ridiculous. It wasn't news to me that Brazilians of White-Amerindian mixture don't have their own census category.

The old source I mentioned states this: "Figures are hard to get. But a semi-official estimate (1922) is that Brazil is 51 per cent white, 14 per cent Negro, 22 per cent mulatto, 11 per cent mestiço, and 2 per cent Indian." I own the 1941 edition (([10]), but Google Books' preview of it doesn't show that quotation; however, you can find the same quotation in the 1943 edtion: [11]. SamEV (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who reads this section will see that I tried to reason and only after all you did that I said that I would request an arbitration. Leaving that aside, what can we do about the table? It can not remain as it is. --Lecen (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that there are estimates of Caboclos and Cafuzos by non-government entities. For example, leading up to the last Brazilian census there were organized efforts by Caboclos for a separate census category. Maybe Caboclo organizations have estimates of this group's total population. And maybe Cafuzos have them for their group, too. But of course, it would be even better if we obtained the estimates from more neutral sources. SamEV (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it sensible to remove the note?

Do you want me to add a note to the top of the table, until we resolve this? SamEV (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that no one around wants to change anything even though they know that the text is wrong. I believe that I have other more interesting things to do in Wikipedia than losing my time in here. However, I do strongly support this article to change its name to "Hispanic-America". It would make more sense since Brazil is - at best - a minor player in here. --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

New page Latin Americans

I've just created a Latin Americans article, primarily derived from the Latin America#Demographics section of this article. As I added a "Main" template in this section, redirecting to the new article, I guess it is time to cut some paragraphs/photos/tables from this extensive section.

Furthermore, I'd be happy to count with your help in developing the Latin Americans new article.

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The new article looks fine. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes in the "Summary of socio-economic performance indicators for Latin American countries"

I changed the statistics for the Human Development Index and for the Gini coefficient, I put the most recent statistics according to the source. The data that was previously on the chart (for the HDI and the Gini) was not accurate and was not based on the source. I forgot to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonCR (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the city list and Brazilian boosterism

User:Maxpana3 changed the list of the largest Latin American cities. He's using an uncommon view and considering only the "city proper" population, in order to get Sao Paulo listed in the first place. That is a serious bias and a personal POV, given the fact that the most common usage always considers cities as a whole, that is, as a metropolitan area. Nobody would think, for example, that the Charles de Gaulle airport is not part of Paris, only because it is located in another municipality, when in fact that municipality is next to Paris and part of the metropolitan area.

He has already accused me of "edit warring" when in fact, he was the one that introduced this potentially controversial changes, and kept reverting without paying attention to the reasons I gave him, nor even taking the time to open a discussion. Now I'm opening the discussion because of his lack of will to settle this.

My point? Very simple. We should stick to the most common usage and consider the cities as a metropolitan area. This has always been the way in this article and it has worked, until now. Thanks.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If established practice is that populations in the list should refer to metropolitan area rather than city proper (as in practically all other articles AFAIK), that should certainly make things easier. However, I am not at all convinced that Mongabay.com is a reliable source. Are no better sources available? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Fvasconcellos there are. I was thinking about the same. I'm going to add the same source used in the article "List of metropolitan areas by population". It's from a published book about this very issue. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that metropolitan areas: both the metropolitan area of Mexico City as the metropolitan area of São Paulo, are defined by federal laws of each country. They provide municipalities which belong to that area, in the case of Mexico, the 41 municipalities and 16 delegations defined here (ZMCM in spanish). This area according to the latest census INEGI and CONAPO 2005 has 19,239,910 and according to UN estimates for 2009 has 19.319 million. The metropolitan region of São Paulo (metro são paulo wiki spanish), as defined by federal law, is composed of 39 municipalities, and according to IBGE estimates for 2009 has 19,889,559 and 20,262,000 according to UN estimates.

I think that all these references I am providing are more reliable than Mongabay.com, since they are official sources, in this case, IBGE, and INEGI UN. In addition, the references provided in accordance with the policies of wikipedia, primary sources, secondary and tertiary.

When the user says that the Charles de Gaulle airport is not part of Paris, only because it is located in another municipality, when in fact that municipality is next to Paris and part of the metropolitan area, I agree with, but not any municipality or region can be part of a metropolitan area, but even when there is an official definition for this. That means for example, Pachuca, Cuernavaca, Tula, Toluca, etc, are not part of the metropolitan area of Mexico, for the simple fact that the official definition does not. This reduces the population of this area from 21 million to 19.

In addition, this issue was much discussed in the Spanish Wikipedia Latin America in Spanish, where there was already a consensus. I'm not trying to proselytize, but show real data and not "myths". Please see discussion metropolitan areas in latin america discussion and Most populous metropolitan areas in Latin America, according to official data. --Maxpana3 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The ZMVM came out with 2009 population estimates (same estimate year of Sao Paulo, so we have a fair comparison of official numbers) of Greater Mexico City with a recently expanded definition. Using the old definition, Mexico City (19,981,801) is slightly larger than Sao Paulo (19,889,559). With the recent expanded definition, Greater Mexico City is even larger with a population 21,163,226. The UN estimate for Sao Paulo is for the agglomeration and not necessarily the metropolitan area. UN estimates in my opinion are the least reliable estimates to use, due to inconsistencies with definitions and considerably different figures for cities like Jakarta, Manila, and Seoul, when compared to other considered reliable lists such as City Population, Demographia, or World Gazetteer where those 3 sources give roughly close estimates to each other. I wouldn't take the UN estimate as a hard fact. Using the metropolitan definition, World Gazetteerlists Mexico City as being larger than Sao Paulo. Using the agglomeration definition, City Population also lists Mexico City as being larger than Sao Paulo. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

World Gazetteer Also, it is taken as a reliable source, since the actual owner of the website, it says it is a task performed by hobby. In the discussion that I added in Spanish and was verified by a World Gazetteer librarians who have dual or ambiguous concepts metropolitan areas. For example, include Pachuca, Cuernavaca, Toluca, Tula, etc. to the metropolitan area of Mexico to add that number to 21,163,226. Second, as the UN report, now not says that Mexico City is the largest in Latin America, now does not serve, but well when he said it, it was official and reliable source. See articles history. Third, the link 2009 Population Estimates refers to an area "imaginary", not defined legally. It is not the same metropolitan area of Mexico City (as defined by federal law as an entity), which Metropolitan Area of Mexico (not defined by law but "concept" related to the geographical). In this way, is not the same metropolitan area of São Paulo (Defined by Brazilian Federal Law N14), which Complex Extended Metropolitan São Paulo ("concept" which speaks of geographical environment, similar to the Valle de Mexico). If we are to figures Complex São Paulo Extended Metropolitan reaches 25 million people, and there are references to this, of course, can not be used because it is not a metropolitan area defined as such, just as the Area speech inthis article.--Maxpana3 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with using official estimates. Unless proven otherwise, we can't say that Sao Paulo and Mexico City measure their metropolitan area in the same way. One might be more "generous" or more restrictive than the other. A common example of this is London vs. New York. Might be a bit outdated, but Emplasa does state that Mexico City is larger than Sao Paulo. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 14:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest continental demographic table entry

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

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

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

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

Proposed map

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

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

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

Origin of "Latin"

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

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

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

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

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

The Racial Table nned to be corrected

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

Latinoamérica

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iberoamérica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racial/Ethnic statistics

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

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

Thank you, Red Bulls Fan.

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

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

Who did change the data I had written?

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

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

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

Well, you seem to be operating in good faith, and you did ask nicely. User Moxy removed it ([12]). Moxy's a good editor, so the reason must have been a good one. SamEV (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

El Salvador

The ethnic groups in El Salvador are wrong, the area is 90% Mestizo 9% White and 1% American Indian according to the countries national figures and the US as well [13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poverty

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

UN World Urbanization Prospects

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

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

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

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

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

• Maxpana3 edits months ago in Polanco [14] and Latin America [15].
• IP 200.125.16.14 recent edits in Polanco [16] and Latin America [17].
• Then Maxpana3 reverts my edits to the IP's edit, today [18].

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

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

I won't disscus with a sockpuppeter that edits anonymously to prevent being blocked. That's what you want to do, you're proving it. You are reverting and reverting, and will come back if your IP gets blocked. That's called "playing the system". Cherry-picking references won't be allowed nor tolerated. The current list has a one-sourced same-year reference, wich is the best for comparision. Will revert your vandalism and disruptions. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If French is also considered a Romance language, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) why isn't Canada initially included as part of Latin America. Furthermore, if the Hispanic population in the USA continues to grow, either by reproduction or immigration, wouldn't the USA eventually become part Latin America too given the possibility of them all knowing Spanish? What are the actual requirements and conditions for a country to "speak" a language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.164.109.125 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

GDP

In the table of socioeconomic indicators i think is more logical put the nominal gdp and the gdp per capita ppp, all know that chile per capita is superior than argentinian, also the growth rate i guess is more acurrate of cia, the same with the gdp and per capita

if some moderator accept this idea i have the table for copy and paste and if he wann i can send to him in email or put it in megaupload or do it by myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.165.121 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced

An dynamic IP keeps adding: "At the same time the Soviet Union propped up the Fidel Castro communist dictatorship and tried to export communist dictatorship to the rest of Latin America." This needs to be sourced. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in that paragraph is sourced. Therefore, you have to assume that everything in it responds to common sense and to evident facts clear to everyone.150.203.220.83 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As with the rest of the section, this part is a mess. Unsourced and poorly written ("At the same time"?, etc.), it seems to be a section on US policy towards LatAm during the Cold War. Not only the section seems to be dealing with US-USSR moves in the region and very little with Latin America itself, but everything that is mentioned about LatAm also seems to be just bias and cliché. There are almost no truly historical comments on LatAm, actually. Althougth unsourced, some content can be found on specific articles. I'll remove the more dubious parts later. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that, may be it has been already deleted. Uhmm but if such a statement is going to be introduced then it should be sourced. I dealt with all kinds of stupid things when I was an unregistered user. Karnifro (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Boosterism... again

I removed the following paragraph:

Brazil is the richest country in Latin America and accounts for approximately 40% of the continent's economy (in nominal GDP). According to 2010 estimates, Brazil's nominal GDP is estimated at US$2.09 trillion. The South American nation is the seventh richest country in the world and is currently the only Latin American country to ranked among the ten largest economies in the world — its GDP is more than US$1 trillion greater than that of the second-richest country, Mexico, who's GDP accounts for approximately 19% of Latin America's economy at US$ 1.03 trillion.

It obviously has a lot of issues. First of all we don't need a whole paragraph talking about a single country. Secondly it is full of weasel words such as "richest" (see WP:WEASEL). It contains irrelevant comparisons and descriptions, set only as a way to "improve" the country perception, which constitutes boosterism (see WP:BOOSTER).

It was just added hours ago by an anonymous IP user from Brazil, and then re-introduced by another user. It is clearly a major boosterism case and that's why it was removed. Just wanted to leave this message to make things clear to the Wikipedia community. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant as it is in the economy section and discusses the economics of the country with the largest GDP in Latin America. There are no issues I see within the text, perhaps you could elaborate on that matter. The statement that it is full of weasel words is unfounded; how else would you describe the richest without saying rich? Perhaps, to keep it within context, it would be better to say "has the largest GDP." 08OceanBeach^S.D. 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is boosterism. It breaks several wikipolicies so I support that they have deleted it. There's no justification to finger point Brazil or Mexico as the richest countries of Latin America. More evident of boosterism is the fact that the whole paragraph was devised purely to talk up Brazil in a comparative way (Wikipedia policy tell us to avoid comparisons). We should ask ourselves, what is the rasonale to compare it? What benefit it does to the article? None. Does it improve the article? No.

So it is very evident it is boosterism!! There's already a comparative table in this economics section, very useful and complete without boosterism attempts because it is presented neutrally. It highlights both the 1st and last ranked country in each category.
KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely support they deleted this paragraph but I also want us to notice how the user strategically used nominal GDP instead of GDP at PPP. He/she used it because it creates the illusion that the Brazilian economy is larger. GDP at PPP is used in economics to make comparative reports because it cuts off the disparities related to several factors and it represents very accurately the reality of an economy. Using nominal GPD creates the illusion that Brazil is 1 trillion ahead of Mexico, which in reality is only around 0.5 trillion. That is a huge difference!!! and it also modifies the false statement that Brazil economy accounts for 40% of that of Latin America (which was unreferenced). So I completely support they deleted this paragraph. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 18:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan economies

I find a notice I receive on my talk page amusing: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Americas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. My edit summary plainly stated removing section - it has little to do with Latin America and a whole and gives metropolitan areas in the region undue weight. It would serve better as a fork. As my edit summary stated, I believe that it gives metropolitan areas and their economies in Latin America undue weight. It would better serve as a fork on economies in Latin America. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda tired of your "Mexico vs brazil" agenda (that a simple collection of diffs from your edit summary will show) in this and other articles around Wikipedia. In this article you've tried to list Sao Paulo first in the "largest cities" by favoring the very limiting "city proper" definition (just because it happens that Sao get listed first under that concept). Then you tried to add a whole paragraph about the brazilian economy plagued with weaseal words (that's the real undue weight). Then you've tried to (again) negate the fact that Mexico is part of North America as a region... and so on. Now, you want to delete this because it list first Mexico City... [roll eyes].

Now, cut to the chase. Removing sections that are referenced ("section blanking") constitutes a form of vandalism, that's why I added a warning at your talk page. Sadly, lately a lot of your edits are not constructive and to some extent they are a form of boosterism in favor of Brazil.

However, I'm not opposed to the eventual deletion of this particular section. I do think it gives the reader a deeper and quick sight into Latin American economy, but let's ask other editors before removing it. I don't have a problem with the removal of this section if we conclude it is not really necessary. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The agendas you repeatedly create for myself constantly amuse me. Yes I find the city proper concept more accurate of a city's population; there are numerous cities in a metropolitan that each have their own identity. I could care less what city comes out the largest in a population list organized by city proper. I also did not add the paragraph on the Brazilian economy, another editor did. I have acknowledged Mexico is part of North America, it would be absurd to purport it's not. And yes, I want to remove this paragraph because, as my edit summary said, it has little to do with Latin America as a whole and gives metropolitan areas in the region undue weight. It would serve better as a fork. You simply have a POV that larger populations are better and that is not always the case. This leads you to assume that I have an agenda to launch Brazil to the top. When in fact, my edits have little to do with Brazil or any country/city/state/metropolitan area. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

City rankings... again

Well this is useful however i think it would be best to move the dispute to a new page or set up a new link to the right area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be the second time a person wants to change the city rankings in the infobox. In my personal opinion and experience, this always happens because a single person (registered user or anonymous IP) doesn't like the rank their city received. Also this issue was discussed previously and metropolitan area statistics remained in the infobox, as usual.

When people refer to a city, they think about it as a whole (metro area). City proper is not a demographical concept per se, but a political-administrative concept very limiting when it comes to demography. City proper term describes the area in which a political entity (city government, municipal government) rules. And of course this political entity has a population, but it doesn't reflect the city as a whole just a small portion of the metro area (This was already stated in the previous discussion, I'm just adding it here again for info purposes).

You don't think about Paris being a 1.4 million city, but as a 14 million city because you always include the metropolitan area concept. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is English Wikipedia and English speaking people, especially in the United States, acknowledge the city proper or municipal boundary definition. Seeing as the United States is home to the largest population of native born English speakers, many will find it shocking and relatively misleading to list the metropolitan area population instead of the city proper population. It may be more efficient to go by a better standard where there will only be the top ranked city and metropolitan area as is done with the country info-boxes. Latin America and related topics should not be exempted from use of the City Proper definition simply because the definition is not common in Latin America, where the majority speak Spanish or Portuguese -- not English. I expect all my major points to be addressed in the next response so this discussion does not end up going in circles. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your doubts were answered already. Also like I said another discussion was held not long ago and metro area is the best. I know a lot of Americans here in Wikipedia and they don't go by the use of "city proper" in real life. They refer to cities as a whole, as a metropolitan urban area. This is just plain and absurd boosterism in favor of Sao Paulo, like you tried to do in the article Americas. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh that's weird OceanBeach, I'm from the US (from Texas) and if you live in let's say a Houston suburb or in NYC you consider yourself part of the city of Houston/NYC and you go around and say "hey, I live in Houston", because big cities always have suburbs and they're just part of the metropolitan area, even if you know you have to pay your taxes to your specific city proper.

So I believe a metro area listing is far better than a city proper. This city proper stuff sounds too restrictive IMHO.Karnifro (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that this has nothing to do with Sao Paulo boosterism. I'm not even from Sao Paulo much less Brazil, or Latin America for that matter. So I would appreciate it if you cease with your petty accusations, AlexCovarrubias. Karnifro, I understand what you're saying, but I also feel that, generally speaking, one only refers to the larger city because it is well known. I have no problem with the listing, just rename the title metropolitan area. No where on Wikipedia is it advocated that the terms metropolitan area and city are coterminous. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Karnifro & AlexCovarrubias, a metro listing is much better in this kind of article, than individual city listing, especially when considering some cities do not fit within the traditional definition of "city" (ie: Miami-Dade) -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • However the article of Miami maintains a "city proper status" while the metropolitan area has it's own articles. It is noted that Miami is at times used as an umbrella term to refer to the whole metropolitan area but no were is it advocated that they are coterminous. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 18:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Subdivision of Latin America

I don't want to make ad hominem attacks but this is just insane and disruptive. It is very easy to detect in User:08OceanBeach SD edit pattern that he has been systematically deleting, denying or opposing the fact that Mexico is part of North America. We had to deal with that before and I thought he had stopped.

So this time he deleted the region North America as part of Latin America. Mexico is the only country part of it but it is still a region of Latin America, it is a subdivision. He also deleted a map that illustrated these four basic regions (some count three instead, grouping Central America and the Caribbean together, as they do in Brazil). Of course I've reverted it. I also added a reference just in case [19] .

Every user from Latin America know these regions, especially those from Central America. Thanks for reading, just wanted to leave this message as a receipt for administrators and editors in general. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are ad hominem attacks. My edit summaries very clearly state the problem with the content in question. First of all, the map does not accurately portray Latin South America - it highlights Suriname, French Guiana, and Guyana; countries not a part of Latin America. Mexico is part of North America, but, then again so are the Caribbean and Central America. To list North America as a region of Latin America would insinuate that North America is Mexico and Mexico alone. It should be listed only as Mexico, unless the North American portion of Latin America highlights Central America and the Caribbean as well. You need to remember than in Anglo-America (aka English-speaking America, Northern America [English Wikipedia]) North America commonly refers to the whole North American continent. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

North America is a subdivision of Latin America as showed in the reference I provided. It doesn't only include Mexico, but Mexico is the only Latin American country inside that subdivision. You are also well aware that North America also refers (and especially in a Latin American context) to a region of the Americas including Canada, Mexico and the US. Is it really necessary for me to paste again all the sources that indicate this from our past talks? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. That is not the common usage of the term North America in the English-speaking world, as you very well know. In a Latin-language Wikipedia the content may be appropriate, but, it is certainly not here. Simply put, the text is misleading and not encyclopedic. It supports a fringe view in the English-speaking world of a region and the problem would very easily be solved renaming North America to Mexico. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll try to explain myself this way: Is there a continent named North America? Yes. Is there a region named North America containing only Canada, Mexico and the USA? Yes. Is this region part of LatAm? Yes. Are there any sources supporting this? Yes.

So it is obviously not a fringe. The subdivision of Latin America to which Mexico belongs it happens to be called North America, just as the continent in the 7 continents model (let's not forget there are other models). It is supported by the source. So renaming this subdivision to "Mexico" is just OR. We are talking about regions/subdivision. And the northern-most region of LatAm, to which Mexico belongs, it is called North America. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To someone from Latin America, I'm sure this explanation would make sense. But when someone from the English-speaking world, or anywhere for that matter, sees Mexico labeled North America, it is shocking. It is almost as if one is saying Mexico is, and only is, North America. Of course there are other models, but Wikipedia goes by the most common of everything; and that means going by the most common model. Saying that this subdivision is not called Mexico is absurd. Is Mexico not Mexico? Of course it is, and it makes perfect sense to call it Mexico. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 07:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how to explain my view on this. I'll try again OceanBeach. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People come here to learn about something. They will learn that Latin America is subdivided into 4 basic regions. They will learn that, for example, Brazil is part of S. America, that Costa Rica is part of C. America, that Dominican Republic is part of the Caribbean... and if they want to known what subdivision of Latin America Mexico belongs to, they will learn it is part of a region called North America. See, the subsection of about the regions of Latin America so leaving Mexico alone without its proper region is just absurd. Will they be confused? I don't think so. But if they "feel confused" they will simply look at the map and will learn that Mexico is the only country part of this region. Leaving Mexico "regionless" in a subsection about subdivisions of Latin America is just absurd, especially when there's sources about this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not absurd. This may be irrelevant, but the area of Mexico is larger than that of Central America. Though it may be "regionless," it is still an accurate subdivision of Latin America. It is only confusing because Central America and the Caribbean area also part of North America. I updated the map to better describe the subdivisions. Let me know what you think of it. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 08:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It astounds me that you are unwilling to compromise at all. Instead you would revert an image (though there was an issue with the captioning) without giving your thoughts as I so kindly asked. Your refuse to acknowledge that Central America and the Caribbean are part of North America, and purport that the three-country definition of North America is the most common, when in fact it isn't. Furthermore, you appear to cease taking part in discussion which is completely unhelpful. If you do not continue to take part in discussion, I will be forced to act in a manner I see most fit for Wikipedia; e.g. reflecting common viewpoints and consensus in the English-speaking world. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 23:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

North America is a continent yes, but it is also a region. You are well aware of that because of past discussion at the page North America. Latin America has these four regions. We are not talking about continents but regions/subdivisions of Latin America, and Mexico happens to be part of the Latin American region named also North America. There's a source about it and there's a map illustrating this. There is not a Latin American subdivision called "North America" containing also C. America and the Caribbean. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Right now it appears this is cherry picking in its finest form. Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean are all on the North American continent; thus they are in North America. By your logic, in Latin America, Mexico is North America and North America is Mexico as the United States and Canada are not part of Latin America but constitute your favored definition of "North America." Your source is a Spanish-language source and is not ideally fit for this article. If another user desired, they could find a Brazilian source and advocate for the grouping of Central America and the Caribbean as one region in Latin America. It would seem within Latin America itself there are different views on what regions/subdivisions are within Latin America. Should not the common view - where Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean are part of North America - be presented in this article? That is not to say the regions themselves cannot still be subdivided within the Latin part of North America. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

After days of no response from AlexCovarrubias, it would seem he no longer cares or thinks the matter worth discussing. Seeing as he has not taken part in measures to enhance this article, I will follow through with constructive edits that represent the common view and do not constitute to cherry picking. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

On contraire, the person that abbandoned the talk was you. It is your personal interpretatation that because I didn't continue to talk here I "don't care" anymore. The same can be said about your lack of participation in this and other articles. But we all know such interpretations are just empty and wrong. Of course I stand by what I already said in previous messages.

Also I'd like to point out that what you refer to as "common view" should be proven first. Any other attempt to add (not replace) another subdivision of Latin America must always be included with a source directly talking about subdivisions of Latin America, not loose OR interpretations based in a collection of geographical references. I mean, we need a geographical source that specifically talk about subdivisions, regions or something like that within Latin America. Let's remember one of my points: we are talking about regions, not continents. Regions within Latin America.

As I repeatedly said, the common regions of Latin America are those already in the subsection (with the appropiate reference). The article has been stable in this matter because they are simply correct, other way we would have had lots of users trying to "correct" this.

Finally I must ask you 08OceanBeach SD to refrain from making such uncivil assumptions about people "not caring" anymore about certain topics. They are just provocative in nature, reactionary and do not help at all. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are really worried about user being "confused" (I still believe the article is very clear about this), we could add a caption note in the map that goes something like "Not to be confused with North America (and a link to the article), which in English designates the northern continent of the Americas, also including C.A. and the Caribbean". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is ridiculous at best. It is clearly evident you did not respond for five days and thus my conclusion was a logical one to come to. So don't try and say I abandon the talk while simultaneously playing the victim. You failed to acknowledge how a Brazilian could easily purport Central America and the Caribbean being one region. No doubt numerous sources could be found. As previously mentioned, even within Latin America the definitions for the regions vary. Either would be cherry-picking as it does not support the common view. You ask that I supply sources supporting the "common view." I simply ask you to look at the numerous articles on Wikipedia showing Central America and the Caribbean as part of North America. Many, most likely most, English-speaking people - keep in mind we are on English Wikipedia - know that Mexico is in Latin America but it is not labeled North America. Under WP:BLUE I shouldn't have to supply a source. Though, if you supply an English-language source, the statement will hold more credibility for it being a common view in the Anglosphere. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly evident that you didn't respond for five days (in this and other articles) so it would also be logical for me to "conclude" that you stopped caring about this and those articles. However, as I already said, that would be plainly empty and wrong. So I'll just ignore those comments you made in your previous post.

First of all, like I said, we are talking about geographical regions/subdivisions of Latin America not continents. North America is both a continent and a region, as you already know. The regions as they are presented now are the most common subdivision of Latin America.

So I repeat, if we are going to include another subdivisions of Latin America, we must provide a reliable geographical reference that explicitly talks about this matter. So far you continue to talk about continents, not regions of Latin America, our topic in this talk. Finally, trying to discredit a text just because it is not in English won't work. Wikipedia recommend using sources in English but do not ban or discredit references in other languages. Using a source in English also don't make it "more credible" or "more valid" as you suggest. That's called systemic bias. You should really read more about these topics. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Forgot to mention that in Brazil the Americas are taught to be a single continent including the regions of North, Central and S. America. Mexico, Canada and the USA are part of the N. A. region. But those are subcontinents of the Americas, not subdivisions of Latin America. As I said we are speaking about subdivisions of Latin America. If we can find a portuguese source about these regions also being subdivisions of Latin America, it will only reinforce the current published version of the article. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ustedes need to chill out. This conversation is so baited with trigger words that its almost impossible for anyone to join -- porque they know that they will be jumped on if they say anything that disagrees con one lado or the otro. This isn't a battle to win, its an article on a collaborative project. Until others become involved, a resolution of this (and other conflicts) will be a long-time in the making. :( -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally have witnessed Ocean Beach lack of civility in this an other articles.... that's why I had to report him for edit warring last time we tried to discuss at global city. But this time his bad behaviour is limited to this talk page so I would say that's a good thing and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being honest here.
Uhhmmm in this matter I would have to agree that these are regions of Latin America. I learned that ever since I was in junior high or even before that.... and I don't see a problem here because there are sources that support the text. Also I would have to agree with the fact that North America/South America meaning continent are not subdivisions of Latin America, so why would we use terms that belong to continental models if the text is talking about regional subdivision? What bothers me is that the map is too big for such a small section it just doesn't look neat so I guess we neeed to expand it at least one paragrah so it will look great and encylopedic. Cheers. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 06:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)