Talk:South America.html



Portal	South America is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil: This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2006)

	Geography portal This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, which collaborates on articles related to South America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives

/Archive 1

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

South America was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: June 23, 2007

A Caribbean Table

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

Continent

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

South America, both a continent and a subcontinent

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

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

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

Mind you: I don't necessarily disagree with this, but information must be dealt with equitably, which doesn't mean equally. Per continent, a wealth of English sources define SA as a continent, relatively few have been provided that corroborate other points of view – e.g., subcontinente in Spanish, none regarding it as a 'region' (though I may be missing this). Take a glance at the wording in the 'Usage' section of North America for a possible alternate. Corticopia 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mind your own words, since you know for a fact, that South America is considered a subcontinent of the Americas, so it is not a "POV". The difference between the article North America and South America is that, in the first, the subcontinent NA doesn't comprise the same territory, so it would be hard to introduce such a introductory paragraph there.

SA as a continent or as a subcontinent, comprises the same territory/land. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I always mind my words: everything is a POV. Actually, I don't know it is a subcontinent for a fact: it may be considered a subcontinent in English and I've seen a number of sources indicating it is a subcontinente in Spanish, but I've seen many more (in English) that indicate it is a continent and a few others still that America is a continent (e.g. Olympics). In my opinion, it's your opinion solely that the North American continent and subcontinente are different (e.g., Central America a region of NA in both languages, at least according to Encarta). The scope of the definition can be narrow (Can, US, MX) or broad (Can, US, Mex, CA, WI). Just source your contributions and deal with content equitably and we shouldn't have any problems. :) Corticopia 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Sorry if I didn't see your comment/suggestion earlier. However, I have already added the notion that South America is also considered a continent, in the Spanish article. Go and check the article history. Oh and by the way, it is in the first paragraph.

• 08:28 1 abr 2007 AlexCovarrubias (Discusión | contribuciones) m (Méx (Noreamérica), Antillas (Centroamérica). Sudamérica, alt también un continente.)

AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a start, but this changes nothing for this article: even the editor whom you solicited feedback from has indicated that a Spanish reference is "not acceptable" in this context. Every major reliable English publication harks of the current lead; can you provide any that differ? Demonstrate why this/your perspective deserves undue mention upfront – as opposed to the equitable presentation of this notion in the article already (e.g., in the Geography section) – you haven't yet. Corticopia 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As of this date – since this discussion became moribund – and after I requested the article be unprotected, the above concerns remain unaddressed. Therefore, a prior, equitable version will be restored until requests are fulfilled that satisfy those concerns or a consensus asserts otherwise. Corticopia 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

An English source is needed. This is the English Wikipedia. Also, since it is the English Wikipedia, it doesn't matter so much what other languages consider South America. They have their own Wikipedias. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, just maybe not enough to be in the introduction. But the important point here is that yes, you do need an English source. Kafziel ^Talk 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes ... and the retort above is replete with logical fallacies. Take Oceania, for example: its introduction notes that it as a region and (sometimes) reckoned as a continent because a number of reliable English sources indicate this (e.g., Atlas of Canada, Collins Atlas). (Take a glance at that article's history, and you'll note that I made precisely this argument there and was instrumental in retaining this tidbit ... and not painlessly.) None have been presented here. And a prior equitable, conciliatory version of this article by my hand – where this viewpoint is given due weight – existed for weeks beforehand (and whereby 'everybody was OK with it' too) before this editor decided to imbalance the intro more recently. Concerns remain unaddressed: please provide reputable English sources that indicate (1) SA is sometimes considered a subcontinent, and (2) when and/or by which constituencies it is considered so. Until these are dealt with, the current version will do. Corticopia 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

where is the WP policy that says all sources must be in english????Chico 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know where is the policy that Chico is asking for. Just because something doesn't exist in your own language it doesn't mean that it doesnt exist. If there are no sources in spanish for certain article, Wikipedians can use sources in english. It would be idiotic to deny knowledge to people just because the original source is not in their languages --132.248.59.44 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

NO policy allows for the POV-pushing and undue weight of recent edits while allowing for C.'s deletionsubstitution of legitimate English citations which indicate something different.[1] Until the requests above are fulfilled to satisfaction or compelled otherwise, the current intro shall stand. Corticopia 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Content Note

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

Yes: this dispute will continue until you edit within the norms of Wikipedia policy and procedures. Though I do not dispute other reckonings, every major English reference unambiguously refers to South American as a continent. The reference you added from the International Olympic Committee (no dispute), while deleting two that were present and directly relevant, only indicates that America is a continent (and this is duly noted in the 'continent' article) – while I do not necessarily dispute this, it does not refer to South America as a subcontinent, so this is a misplaced reference. Anyhow, the notion regarding South America's reckoning as a subcontinent is already equitably noted in the 1st sentence of the 'Geography' section; otherwise, I defer to my prior comments. Corticopia 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Come again?? What policies have I violated?? By the way, if you really feel that I have violated the "norms of Wikipedia policy and procedures" feel free to open a request for comment on my actions. Please also answer my previous question about which policy indicates for English only sources. Just a reminder, I have not attacked you and I would very much thank you if you were to remain civil.Chico 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An administrator who previously commented on this page, regarding this very issue, indicated the need for English sources that usual editors can verify: if they are not in English, a usual visitor cannot corroborate assertions. In any event, the source you've added only indicates that America is considered a continent (by the IOC), it doesn't indicate South America is a subcontinent. You also added this while removing two other reliable sources referring to South America as a 'continent' (which is ubiquitous in English) in the very first sentence (which is arguably vandalism) and notions of it being a subcontinent are already equitable dealt with in the 'Geography' section, so I suggest you think twice before insinuating anything regarding incivility or what have you. Corticopia 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia in English, therefore, the lead section should define South America as it is done in the English-speaking world: a continent. You cannot ask the Spanish or the Portuguese Wikipedias to define South America as a continent, because that model is not used in the Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking world. Nonetheless, this article already complies with WP:NPOV because it also includes the alternative definitions used in other areas of the world, albeit in the Geography section. All points of view are already included and given their due weight, something that is not done neither in the Spanish nor in the Portuguese Wikipedias. --the Dúnadan 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

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

GA failed

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

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

European Infectious Diseases

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

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

Castellano Americano

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

Indigenous peoples

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

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

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

south america facts

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

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

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

Major Landforms SOUTH AMERICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percent of Earth's Land: 12%

Population: 379,500,000

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

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

Catholioc Communities?

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

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

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

GIF Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demographics

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

left-leaning?

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

this is very arguable:

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

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

Sources for article

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

Chilean GDP PP

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

Caption changes

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

I'm not sure if you're referring to the same thing that I've noticed, but I've seen an IP editor continue to enlarge all the images to 250px, insert subjective statements such as "most important", as well as adding "South America" to the end of each caption. I'm not sure why the editor continues to do this without any explanation since those edits are constantly being reverted by several editors. The subjective statements don't need to be there, and adding "South America" to the cities in the captions is redundant, but does anyone think that the pictures need to be enlarged? I think they're fine the size they are. Kman543210 (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:200.118.22.63 also adds a whole bunch of line spaces, creating a huge blank space in the article. There is no reason for the images to be larger than default (180px), especially when there are a bunch together. It overwhelms the text. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository for images. This IP editor has been warned repeatedly. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)