Talk:South America/Archive 1

Map
fakta om syd amerika

Perhaps I should put up an version of the map labelled in English? --Brion VIBBER

Now the political map under Territories and Divisions is in German. Can someone replace it with a similar map in English? 24.11.123.68 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

About Incan Brain Surgery
I think the person who wrote that there is evidence was thinking of the Paracas culture (which is in the Peruvian coast) and not the Incan empire. Shouldn't he point to evidence? Because the Paracas are well known for their 'brain surgery', not the incans

--A Peruvian

24.89.253.218 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) The brain surgery isn't really "surgery" it's a way to let all the bad spirits out of the peoples heads so they drill a hole in the head of the sick

Regions
Other than directional regions (Northern) are there more creative names for regions in South America? For instance the Andean States, Caribbean South America.
 * You have the Bolivarian Nations:Bolivia, Peru, Ecudador, Colombia and Venezuela; you have the Southern Cone:Chile Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay; the Guayanas:Guyana, Suriname and French Guayana; and Brazil as a region;The Amazonian nations:Brazil, Bolivia, Perú, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname;


 * In political or economic terms, the Andean Community and Mercosur cover just about everything and offer a handy north-south split. The three odd-men-out used to be known as "the Guianas", but maybe that's lost some currency since (2/3) independence. There's no other universally accepted system for subdividing the continent up into smaller groupings. –Hajor 17:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What about Chile? I don't think it belongs to any of those groups? acc to links


 * Chile's got 'associate member' status in Mercosur, which is as close as you'll get. And Bolivia is kind of in both (hedging its bets?). It's not an exact science... –Hajor 23:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I find it odd that Chile, or Argentina aren't part of the Andean Community. Is that just a name for the group? Cuz I know Chile is kinda famous for the Andes.


 * Word. Argentina and Chile share the highest mountain in the Andes, but they're not in the Andean Community. It's just the name of the group: compare with European Union (and the European countries not in it). –Hajor 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Chile was one of the original members of the Andean Community in 1969. In 1976, Augusto Pinochet withdraws Chile from the Andean Community claiming economic incompatibilities. --KRATK 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Physical South America
Some well-linked basic geology should replace the bald list of nations opposite the physical map, since the same list, in tabular form (by populations) is repeated just below. If on the whole this entry seems over-mapped just now, that's because it's severely under-texted. Wetman 00:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for clearing that up, Hajor!


 * And, to confuse matters even further, just today Vicente Fox went and applied for associate membership status in Mercosur for Mexico. Commercial interests outweighing geography... –Hajor 22:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Panama, border between american continents
Panama is not listed as South American state. Why? Where is the border between North and South America?

I think that it should have some South American territory too - if not, then Columbia should have some North American territory - becouse it is highly unlikely that former colony or current state borders are drawn EXACTLTY on purely geographical continent borders.


 * Geographical boundaries can be just as arbitrary as national borders. Look at the boundaries between Asia, Europe, and Africa, and the controversies that have ensued here. That said, I think you have a valid point. However, it would be best to have some sort of reference to a widespread or widely respected definition of these borders before putting something in the article. My references divide North and South America at Panama's border with Columbia, and if that means that the boundary between the two continents has been conveniently moved to coincide with the national boundary, it wouldn't be anything unusual. --Yath 16:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I am sure that there is a RIGHT classification... I have checked one source and it included much more to South America - Belize, Nicaragua, etc. - only Mexico, Canada, USA and some caribbean islands were included in North America. That dosn't seem correct. I think about Panama to be both North/South, becouse Columbia is undisputably in South America, the reasons about geographical/political borders, the shortest distance between Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is in Panama, so I think this place can be "taken" as the North/South border - at least it is a geographical feature (like Sea, river, mountain etc. in Europe/Asia), not some human-made political one...

You might be confusing Latin America with South America.

Mexico and the 7 Central American countries are geographically in North America (not South America), but culturally they are part of Latin America.

Note that the Spanish word norteamericano is used by Mexicans and others in Latin America to US citizens - never to Mexicans, Salvadoreans, etc.
 * A more commonly used expression to refer to Americans is estadounidense (literally United Stater or United Statesian).--tequendamia 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

See Table of the Americas, which I just made 30 minutes ago, and tell me if helps at all. Uncle Ed 04:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

TRINIDAD
Trinidad-Tobago is clearly part of South America.


 * Whoever wrote that--why? All the references I've found include it among the Caribbean states, which makes it part of Central America, which makes it part of North America.  I admit, it does seem a little bit stupid, with it being so close to the South American coast, but continental boundaries are not always logical.  It's also right near the Lesser Antilles, and the Netherlands Antilles aren't that far from the South American coast either.  Find some references that say that Trinidad & Tobago is in South America, recent ones; until then, I'm putting it back in North America. Alfvaen 03:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad is actually technically part of the South American continental shelf, therefore being part off South America geographically, but part of the Carribean Culturally.User:Marco524

Proper usage of "invaded"
...indigenous inhabitants of South America were invaded by European conquistadors...

People can be invaded by parasites, infectious agents, etc. Territory is what is invaded by people – conquistadors et al. This should be rephrased, methinks. Kbh3rd 01:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it to specify the land of the people was invaded, but the sentence still seems awkward to me. Hm.  Not sure how to fix.  Suggestions? Fieari 04:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph. I think it says everything that had been there before, but it reads better now. Feel free to comment & let me know what you think. Gblaz 02:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I tweaked it just a little more. I think it looks fine. Maurreen (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Geography before history?
I just tried to move the geography section to an earlier position in the article than the history section, but it makes the article look bad with the current placement of the large map graphics, and I couldn't figure out how to fix that, so I didn't save the edit. Does anyone else think that the geography section ought to precede the history section? --Eric Forste (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who changed the order earlier, and I was unsure of it at the time. I now think it would be better as the first section. I agree with you about the maps images. Maybe we just need to figure out a good way to scatter them. I don't have any better ideas yet. Maurreen (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe the map now called "Physical map of South America" should be changed to "Political map of South America" and moved to the end of the history section. Then the "satellite composite image" could replace it next to the TOC. Maurreen (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The rearrangement looks good. Maurreen (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eric Forste (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Languages
Spanish is the primary language seems to be a poor phrasing to me. If (according to Brazil) Brazil has the largest population, exceeding 50%, than the primary languague of South America would be portuguese, not spanish. Perhaps a better phrasing would sound something like spanish is spoken in most countries... or similar.LtDoc 22:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

nice picture
This article could benefit from the picture at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03388 --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Species of animals
I think this sentence needs to be rewritten: "South America is home to many interesting species of animals including parrots, tarantulas, snakes, and mammals." I don't know enough about the animal world, but surely mammals can't be referred to next to snakes, parrots and tarantulas as an interesting species. Just drop the mammals reference?Sholto.mac 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I mess up the page sry

WikiProject Venezuela
I'm looking forward to found the WikiProject Venezuela. I had the idea of creating it when I first made the portal. The project will have the main objective of centrating efforts into a more complete information and a higher quality of the articles in Wikipedia, other media in the sister projects, and the portal itself.

However, the rules say that I should have at least five to ten members willing to integrate and contribute to the wikiproject. So if some of you guys want to join in, then leave me a message, or in this page. I will be back in a few days to see how things are going on.

Go to Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects and list yourselves if you wanna join. --Alex Coiro 06:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Latin Peoples
The article says:


 * European descendants, especially from Spain, Portugal and Italy.
 * Latin peoples
 * Mapuche
 * Latin peoples
 * Mapuche

According my understanding, people from Spain, Portugal and Italy are Latin peoples. baloo_rch 13:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm changing it. If anyone disagrees, change it back and discuss here. Gerardo199 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Valparaiso also a Capital of Chile?
It does contain the legislative branch of the government, but is never reffered to as a capital. Should it be put as a capital? Gerardo199 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In creating the tables for all six populated continents/regions, I sought to make them rather succinct but comprehensive: this includes noting multiple administrative centres for numerous countries (e.g., Netherlands in Europe, South Africa in Africa, et al.) For now, however, I will concede the current version as sufficient since sources do prevail in noting only Santiago as the de jure capital. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then i suppose it depends on the criteria of the other continent pages. If the criteria is listing the cities with any admisitrative centre, the the list is correct by including Valparaiso, but the name "capital" shouldn't go in that coulmn, IMO. If the criteria is listing cities that are commonly reffered to as capitals, i think Valparaiso should be out. Gerardo199 13:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Similar criteria; notes below clearly indicate differences. I'll mull it over and perhaps retitle the appropriate column headers. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

History and History of South America
At a broad glance, it seems like the content under the History section of this article and the content on History of South America seem to match, with minor differences. Merge? --Ted 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. History of South America has the potential for massive expansion. Albrecht 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about keeping History of SA separate, but I'm moving over some text. --Carwil 19:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The suggestion for a merge has been here for many months without gaining support, so I'll remove it.- gadfium 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It could have two.

Economy
To Gadfium,

Current form: "The exception is Chile, which some believe had a head start from 1973 under Augusto Pinochet."

If this gives the impression or recommends an induction, that everybody are enthuastic about the market economy and it's beneficial foreign investment, do you call it in english as "being idiomatic"?

My suggestion: "The exception is Chile, which has built it's market economy longer, since the time of the president Augusto Pinochet."

Why are you complaining about one accidental "build" word? If that's not why you're complaining, then why don't you want to accept my suggestion and why don't you want to change the current form, please?

How did you notice that I had modified this article, please?

Why didn't you warn first here about your intention to revert my edit?

Consequently, I will revert it back in 24 h from this message or from your last unhelpful message. Teemu Ruskeepää 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I failed to understand what you were saying. I thought you might not have understood the expression "head start". I'm still not sure how your phrasing is better than the current version. By the way, there is no apostrophe in "its" unless it is a contraction, meaning "it is".


 * I don't usually take a small matter like this to a talk page. I want articles in Wikipedia to be as well written as possible, and I'd rather not leave something unclear in an article while it's being discussed.


 * I saw your edits, and your post on this talk page, because this is one of the articles on my watchlist.-gadfium 19:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet you didn't open up a discussion while you reverted my edits. Please do so in the future.


 * "head start" has a double meaning. It is an advantage. When we describe economic systems and compare them in Wikipedia, we can't express them in a competitive sence, but only in a factual sence. The fact is that Chile's economy is growing because it is an older market economy, but this doesn't mean that the market economy should be old. It also doesn't mean that everyone should have a market economy in South America. You must point out in a comparative sence that Chile has a market economy and because it is older, it is working better than in other states, not that it was good that Chile has had a market economy longer than the other states.


 * If you don't want to do what I ask, how else can I push for my change? Teemu Ruskeepää 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Territorial divisions
per UN subregions are the SUBLISTS in the table. Also UN subregions are not entierly geographical. That is why in Asia we have countries from African, European and Oceanian "UN regions". In the case of Americas in both South and North America we have countries from the "middle" american UN regions - Central and Caribbean. Alinor 08:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And this is already accommodated for through notes in each of those tables. In the other tables, transcontinental territories (e.g., Egypt = Africa/Asia) are still listed in the continent (hence the parenthetical "continental" atop the UN listing) as indicated by the UN (e.g., Trinidad and Tobago, a Caribbean territory which, if you paid attention, is included in the continent of North America), not moved wholly to conform to where a particular user -- i.e., you -- believes they should reside.  Please do not continue to disturb the integrity of the tables and move territories to conform to your singular belief of where and how they should be rendered, as this will be corrected.  Thank you. 142.150.134.52 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You should make difference between UN region divisions and geographical divisions. Determination what countries should be included in the table for North or South America is done on geographical grounds. Then they are SUB-divided according to UN region affiliation. Some of the UN regions span across two geographical divisions: "UN Europe" spans across geographical Europe and geographical Asia. "UN Central America" spans across geographical North and South America. "UN Africa" spans across geographical Africa and Asia. "UN Caribbean" spans across geographical North and South America. The reason for this is that some countries (eg. Russia) have territory on two continents, so a single UN region (drawn across state borders) spans on two geographical continents. Also, some UN regions emphasis more other attirbutes of the territories, not their geographical location. Aruba is a South American island, as Trinidad, but because of their similar human-related issues (like historical, economical, etc.) they are groupped with the other islands in the Caribbean Sea. Alinor 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, do not revert the my entiere edit - it contains more than the territories table (including edits by other users, that you reverted previously). Alinor 07:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what the above is meant to accomplish, but it is largely gibberish and a justification to insinsuate a point-of-view that not only I do not share but is not corroborated by most atlases (e.g., National Geographic) and compendiums, which clearly demarcate (for example) the Caribbean islands as parts of North America. It is also true that they are of the Americas and I can also believe that they are of South America, but the UN system was adopted for these tables (methinks) to prevent the very thing that you are doing (and attempted by others, based on edit histories): moving territories wilfully and making disagreeble edits.  The territories and regions of concern are already noted to straddle two continents, so your edits are rather moot.  In addition, your edits haven't been derived through discussion nor consensus, despite edit notes and perfectly acceptable tables otherwise.


 * Essentially, until you can compel for said changes, which you haven't done and I suspect you won't, I will continue to preserve the integrity of the tables and restore the versions that prevailed for months before you decided to muddy them.  And if you were more judicious and collaborative with your edits, there'd be no reason to revert them regardless.   Thank you.  142.150.134.50 11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "The UN system was adopted for these tables" - yes, but for the borderline cases it is not blindly adopted. As I said - because of reasons not connected with geographical location some countries go into different UN region (than their geographical one), or whole UN regions straddle between two continents. By your thinking we should not include Russia in Asia, because it is in UN Eastern Europe region. As you see in the notes below the tables - in such cases it is noted (as for Netherland Antilles) - that area/population figures are only for the part located in the article-topic-continent... Also, I will ask you kindly to stop reverting... Alinor 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And the prior tables already accommodate for borderline cases. Your changes, made without any discussion/consensus, are not only wilful but unclear and unsourced: who is to say that Barbados, for example, should be included in South America due to its proximity?  The other tables (e.g., Russia in both Europe/Asia) are segregated based on common criteria and already deal with ambiguity.
 * And your similar edits re Timor-Leste/East Timor in Oceania have already been shot down for similar reasons. Since YOU were the one who initiated making debatable changes without garnering the requisite support for them, I will continue to restore the tables that have prevailed for months and invite you to withdraw. Thank you. 142.150.134.65 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not done anything with Barbados. What do you mean with your comment!? I add to South America ONLY Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao (the last two are parts of the Netherland Antilles) - look at the location of these islands - right next to Venezuela. I don't see any arguments for including them with North America. If these islands were Venezuelan no one would consider them to be other than South American. Their groupping with North America (trough the UN Caribbean region) is NOT based on geographical grounds - as explained already above. The same issue as with Cyprus - west asian island that is politicaly and historicaly deeply integrated into Europe, but nevertheless geographicaly it does stand on the asian side of the mediterranean deepness. I have seen even comments like "all Mediterranean islands are european"... much like yours "all Caribbean islands are north american". This is simply not true. Geography does not depend on politics (were such dependencies are implied they should be regarded as POV). Just imagine the various Algerian, Tunisian, Libyian, Venezuelan, Colombian and others islands that are not regarded as european or north american. Also consider that in many such political/historical/economical grouppings Guyana and Suriname are included with the Caribbean islands, despite their location in South America. The same is with Trinidad, Aruba, etc. - the only difference is that they are south american islands - not part of the continental main landmass. But that does not make them less south american. The division between north american and south american islands in the Caribbean Sea is its deepest line... Trinidad, Aruba, etc. are clearly on the south american continental shelf... Alinor 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * !!! Also, stop reverting WHOLE EDITS! Change only the things, about wich you argue! You have reverted multiple times simple additions of links to other wikipedia-languages and other minor (but anyway correct) changes. Alinor 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Edits about East Timor have the same argumets as these here and also they were not "shot down" - they were just reverted by you (or as by-product of reverts about your change of the name Australasia). Alinor 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again: point-of-view bluster above. I'm sorry, but another user at Oceania restored the prior table there.  All of the above is accommodated for in the prior tables through notes.  Until you can demonstrate through sourcing and consensus why we should accept your versions as adequate, and you have not, your edits will be reverted.  And if you don't want your subjective edits to be rolled back, perhaps you should re-read the boiler plate below each edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." 142.150.134.65 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * At Oceania, I see that YOU have reverted, not another user. Rrodi has reverted previously because of the Australasia heading - this is another issue. And also, now Cyberjunkie has reverted your reverts. Again, you continue to reveret without stating any reasons. And you don't comment on the reasons above here. You just stick to your version and that's it. The only reason you gave was the UN map of regions. I think that I explained multiple times that it is not entierly based on geography - on this map Eastern Europe stretches to the pacific coast, covering much of Asia (because of Russia); the same is for the cases here that I add to South America: Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao. Look at their locations!!! And please stop with phrases like "If you don't explain your reverts they will continue to re-restored" - because they apply to you too. Alinor 06:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above proves nothing.  Maps do little to support your tiresome rhetoric.  In your blusters above, you have failed to provide ONE authortative source to support your argument, so I see little reason to respond to subjective argumentation.  I can provide multiple authoritative sources that support my position (e.g., National Geographic, et al.), wherein the Caribbean, while sometimes reckoned as part of South America (particularly territories in proximity to it), is generally reckoned in North America.  You seem to be making distinctions of continents and regions that, actually, remain unverifiable.  Please source your contentions hereafter; otherwise, as above.  And given that you appear to be an established editor, your behaviour is, frankly, pathetic -- hereafter I will not indulge such ripostes.  142.150.134.63 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These islands are Caribbean, yes. But we have to put them in North America or South America table. What geographic sources do you have, that consider them to be North American and for what reasons? As you put it - you failed to provide a SINGLE proof.
 * I already explained, that the deepest parts of the Caribbean sea are north of these islands. The islands are on the south american continental shelf... Alinor 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your explanations -- extraneous assumptions, actually -- mean nothing without citation, which is how Wp operates. And as I've already stated, numerous atlases -- e.g., National Geographic Atlas of the World (pp. 33-36), Collins Atlas of the World -- include all the Caribbean territories in North America ... not as you indicate.  The UN also supports this perspective.  So, that's least at least TWO proofs.  Our own article on the Caribbean says as much.  They do not delineate WHY the Caribbean islands are generally included in North America ... they just do, and that is all that is required and mean far more than your subjective commentary above.  Moreover, I do not disagree that Timor-Leste is perceived as being Melanesian, but the UN obviously has a different perspective on this (and they do have a bank of experts when categoizing this and that) and I opt for their assessment over yours.  The territories were apparently placed in tables per the UN scheme -- which you have not successfully discounted -- to avoid the quibbling that you have introduced through your moves.  Until you can demonstrate why we should maintain your point-of-view in these tables which contravene Wp policies and procedures, I will restore the prior tables. 142.150.134.50 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 142.150.134.63: please review our civility policy. By all means, continue to argue on the issues, but do not denigrate your opponents arguments as "bluster" or call him/her "pathetic".-gadfium 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted, but said editor continues to post reams of text without substance and engage in edit-warring without necessary discussion or consensus. It takes two to tango.  Until A. substantiates said position, one reaps what one sows.  And I suggest if you cannot enter into a discussion constructively, refrain from doing so.  142.150.134.50 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

142.xx, the way the tables are filled is the following: by geographical reasons the world is divided into the following "continents" (whatever this means): North America, South America, Oceania, Asia, Europe, Africa, Antarctica. Then all entities that have territory in the continent in question are included in the table. Then they are sorted according to UN regions, regardless if the UN region covers ONLY the continent in question, or more than one continent. So, UN regions ARE NOT MAIN source - they are used only for secondary sub-group ordering... Stop insisting on this or we should remove Russia from Asia (the most obvious example of non-correspondance between pure geography and UN regions with human influence).

And again - show sources that explicitely say "Trinidad, Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, La Tortuga Island, Aves Island and Orchilla Island (the last islands are Venezuelan that are part of the same chain) are north american islands". Just "showing" the islands on a North America map is not enough - this means only that the map area is too big - does this map show parts of the northern South America coast also? Alinor 07:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For example see this map: of South America. It shows Trinidad, Aruba, etc. But it also shows Honduras and Nicaragua. Does this make the last two contries south american? I think not. I explained multiple times - Aruba, Bonaire, Trinidad, Aves, Curaçao, Orchila are on the south american continental shelf, on the southern side of deepest parts of the Caribbean Sea... this makes them different from Cuba, Jamaica, etc. I continue to wait for your arguments... Alinor 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are two images, that also show the location of the mentioned islands above. Also, IP 14x.xxx, please stop re-reverting without explanation. Alinor 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is, again, dubious. The maps you've provided demonstrate nothing: in addition to maps and tables in various reputable atlases, paper and online, some of which are cited above like Natl Geo, Collins, and:

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/international/north_america/referencemap_image_view http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/international/south_america/referencemap_image_view

generally depict the territories in question as parts of North America. The first map of SA you've provided above, as well as the other locator maps further above, are user-created and possibly as 'opinionated' as their originators. Note that the fact that T&T is scant kiloemtres from the South American mainland is not in dispute.

And, again, your rationale about the UN's rationale for categorisations is supposition without cited, verifiable basis -- i.e., don't explain why you think the tables should be as you assert, but provide sources that indicate they should be that way. Throughout your edit warring, you still have not. To put it another way, please source your contention that islands in proximity to a major landmass must belong to or be included with that landmass. Though I do not disagree with your position per se, I have provided various sources that, in map and or table form, support my assertion. Again, note that the fact that T&T, et al. is scant kilometres from the South American mainland is not in dispute. Presumably, that's why the original tables -- which held for months before you decided to change them -- were predicated on the fairly neutral UN scheme while allowing leeway for transcontinental territories -- e.g., through notes below. Continents can be delineated in any number of ways. Regarding Russia, for example, some authorities consider it belonging to just one continent: Eurasia. Europe is often considered just a sociopolitical construct, not a geographic one per se. The UN regards it in Europe (and I can opine as to why, but won't), but is commonly considered in both Europe and Asia; this is also not in dispute. I see little reason why Wp should differ from other common publications, indicated above, that generally include territories as indicated. In Wp, citation and consensus and are all that matter ... and I see little of that through your POV-pushing and continued reverts. I regret having to do so, but you still have not sufficiently compelled for your position.

Since you have not convinced me -- nor anyone else that I can see for that matter -- of the validity of your assertions, I will continue to revert your re-reverts unless convinced otherwise. A bientot. 65.95.238.251 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again and again the same thing. Your showing of some POLITICAL maps do not proove anything. Also the UN-regions are not helpfull in this case - I explained multiple times why Caribbean can not be considered north american ONLY. I don't understand another your sentense - you say that you don't disagree on T&T - why do you revert then? Let's try a different approach - where does the GEOGRAPHICAL (not political or easier-to-classify) sea border between North and South America goes according to you or your sources? AFAIK the islands that we argue about are on the southern side of the deepest path of the Caribbean Sea and are also on the SA continental shelf. Do you have sources that describe the sea border differently? Alinor 06:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes: again and again. You are making distinctions (geo, political, etc.) that, while not disagreeable, remain unsourced.  I have also stated that I do not disagree with positioning that, e.g, T&T is also South American (due to proximity) cultural influences, et al., but I fail to see why you have decided to categorise and note territories contrary to what most common publications do or based on solitary criteria.  I am not stating that the border between the Americas is a hard-and-fast rule, but Natl Geo, Collins, Atlas of Canada, Britannica, UN the World Book, et al. all corroborate contents per the tables that I am advocating.  Throughout, you still have not provided ONE reputable source to support your assertion.  And the tables I advocate are already conciliatory regarding said territories through notes.


 * And at this point, I don't care for your explanations. Again: do not tell me why YOU think the tables should be as you assert, but provide sources to corroborate your assertions.  You still have not substantiated your positions.  I revert, and will continue to, because mine is a position I can cite/source and verify -- and have -- while you, continually, have not from the beginning.  And until you do, I don't think I can comment further and will act accordingly.  65.95.236.235 13:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is simply not true: show sources that explicitely say "Trinidad, Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, La Tortuga Island, Aves Island and Orchilla Island (the last islands are Venezuelan that are part of the same chain) are north american islands". You just show some political maps, that of course group T&T with the other Caribbean islands, but do NOT group Orchilla, Aves, etc. with them - because they are Venezuelan. This is entierly NON-GEOGRAPHICAL and does not imply that the tables should be divided in your way. Also, the links that you provide do not explain anything. Someone else provided a link that explicitly says that T&T is in South America. You somehow forget this? Also, you say that you agree with my explanations, but will NOT take them into accaunt?!? Yes, I haven't provided link for it, besides the link mentioned that was provided by someone else - but "my" explanation is just common sense - regarding physical geography, not political... Alinor 14:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about ... again? What is not true: that you have not provided ONE authoritative source that explicitly supports your assertions?  (Please provide the link you speak of, which  might've been missed in the chats above; regardless, it does not invalidate other information that indicates otherwise.)  Let me remind you of the Wp tenets herein: verifiability, citing sources.  And the links I have provided fully demonstrate my point: the maps/tables are self-evident, including said territories (geopolitically, if anything) with North America.  If anything, the only change would be the inclusion of all of Panama in North America alone.  After all, we are itemising countries -- geopolitical constructs -- in these continental tables.  The issue of T&T being physiographically (not geographically) approximate to/of South America is, again, not in dispute -- which is already accommodated for in the notes (but can be embellished -- but you continue to be ascribing that aspect undue weight in your reverts.  Ditto for the other island territories indicated -- i.e., parts of the Caribbean which are, in turn, generally reckoned in North America.  I am unconcerned with the Venezuelan offshore islands because, geopolitically and physiographically, they belong elsewhere.  And, again, insistence on using the Wallace Line as a delimiter for Asia/Oceania is unqualified: not one source has been provided to reflect the bastardisation of the tables to reflect this, which is primarily a biogeographic distinction, not a physiographic or geopolitical one.  If anything, the Lydekker Line is a more relevant line to use.  Some of the publications cited above contain data tables (in addition to maps) that do not delimit these territories as you are doing, and harping that they don't -- as you are doing -- rings rather hollow.


 * (Your) "common sense" just doesn't cut it. And until you can overcome your rhetoric and provide sources as requested to support it, I see no need to cater to your sensibilities and will edit and restore the prior tables as required.  65.95.236.235 16:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that you don't read what I am writing - I have NOT said that I have provided link - I said that SOMEONE ELSE provided (maybe on another page, I don't remember, but I will try to find it now). I can't find exactly this link, but here are some others about "Both islands sit on the South American Tectonic Plate", "You would have to travel only 7 miles (11 km) from the coast of Venezuela to reach the island of Trinidad.", "Trinidad was once part of the South American mainland but is now separated by the Gulf of Paria", "just off the coast of South America — almost in the mouth of the Orinoco river. You can see the mountains of Venezuela clearly from Port of Spain.", , ; Examples why human-related issues should not be used as evidence here: "SOUTH AMERICA ENERGY MAP: Energy Map of Trinidad and Tobago" (this supports my point, but I don't accept is as proper proof) and this "South America" list  - it includes many "common sense" NOT south american states, that are included only because their sociopolitical position as "Latin America and Caribbean" (i.e. Guatemala) as opposed to "big America" (USA, Canada and somewhat Mexico). Finaly this " SOUTH AMERICA » COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES » TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO " . Alinor 08:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You say multiple times "GEOPOLITICAL". And this has nothing to do with our arguing here. You are not concerned with venezuelan islands, becasue "geopoliticaly" they are venezuelan - thus not interesting to you. But we argue here about LOCATION and line between continents, not between states/influences/etc. You continue to not provide any clues about where do you think this line goes (see the next topic). Alinor 07:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have NOT provided any links too. Your political maps of North America + Caribbean do not proove anything. They only proove that IF T&T was a spanish posession, part of the pre-Venezuela colony - THEN we would not have this dispute here, because you don't argue about La Tortuga Island, Aves Island and Orchilla Island to be North American (and will you agree that they are Caribbean at least?) Alinor 06:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have NOT provided any links too. Your political maps of North America + Caribbean do not proove anything. They only proove that IF T&T was a spanish posession, part of the pre-Venezuela colony - THEN we would not have this dispute here, because you don't argue about La Tortuga Island, Aves Island and Orchilla Island to be North American (and will you agree that they are Caribbean at least?) Alinor 06:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have NOT provided any links too. Your political maps of North America + Caribbean do not proove anything. They only proove that IF T&T was a spanish posession, part of the pre-Venezuela colony - THEN we would not have this dispute here, because you don't argue about La Tortuga Island, Aves Island and Orchilla Island to be North American (and will you agree that they are Caribbean at least?) Alinor 06:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should start being clearer or making sense, then, which you generally have not been through your verbiage, SCREAMING, and edit warring. Again, statements/links above merely indicate that T&T are near/approximate to South America, not of it.  As for others, either few details are provided or I'm unsure they are reliable enough to pass muster.  You still fail to acknowledge or address that other common publications include T&T (e.g., by virtue of being in the Caribbean) in North America.  Please note that, way back when, this was briefly brought up elsewhere.  And if you took the time to focus on edits and content, I have not once indicated that T&T were not of the Caribbean.


 * As well, you continue to place primacy on mere physiography (and please stop over/misusing "geography", which includes physiography (physical geography), geopolitics (political geography), et al.) when, as above, other factors need to be considered ... the human geographic elements, if you will. Various sources -- reputable ones -- have been provided above (e.g., atlases, tables) that corroborate my assertions.  And numerous maps provided or directed to -- plus tables -- are self-evident; if you have missed them or cannot or will not get off your duff to consult or accept them, that's your problem.  Again, harping that I have not rings rather hollow and will only result in continued editing to restore what was not old but the status quo -- i.e., before you decided to muck everything up. 142.150.134.49 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The links that you supply only show the geopolitical point of view and I don't argue with this. I say that when we deal with continental list we should focus on physical geography instead of geopolitical issues. Alinor 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? We are delineating constituent countries -- geopolitical entities -- in these listings, so geopolitics obviously cannot be ignored.  You have not demonstrated a case nor provided sufficient sources for proposed changes.  Per the table notes, you didn't even discuss your changes when you insnuated them long ago.  And your notes in the revised versions have poor syntax -- remember that geography is a multidisplinary approach entailing physiography, geopolitics, et al. -- and make little sense (e.g., '[x island] is South American geographically', etc.), which is another justification for restorations of prior information.  I also don't see an army of supporters for your version.  Please take note of the (apparently) well-sourced article Americas (terminology), which provides various details on this or that and also does not support your edits.  I'm glad you acknowledge the geopolitical perspective; so are you now going to argue that my sources do not support what I have been asserting ... in which case you seem to be contradicting yourself? 67.68.47.253 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is arguable what is "the status quo". Anyway, when I said that you should edit only things that you don't agree with and not just revert to some older version I mean that by your reverting you remove OTHER UNRELATED EDITS (covering other issues, not include/exclude from the list). So, please, stop doing this and if you insist on re-reverting to your version - change only these parts of the table, that you argue about and do not just use some older version. Alinor 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not arguable what the status quo is: the tables as they were months ago (with sourced data) and rather based on the UN geoscheme before you decided to muck change them to conform with your belief that they should focus on physiography. That is, NOT your versions below.  I disagree, and assert they reflect the arrangement in common publications (read verifiability) ... which tend to include all of the West Indies (save Venezuelan islands) in North America.  And the status quo tables still accommodate for other physiographic perspectives through the notes below.  Through your edits, you still have not demonstrated why this is insufficient or have provided a reputable source to support your table changes, here and elsewhere (e.g., Wallace Line, again).  And I would recommed that you stop reverting and discuss -- even make changes -- here with me until you can prove your case; if not, collateral damage can be expected.  (I do apologise for that, though.)67.68.47.253 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You continue to ignore my questions here below. Alinor 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Patience: I will answer your questions when able -- shortly. And, given how you have repeatedly ignored my requests for reputable sourcing, delays can be expected ... 67.68.47.253 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

North America


Notes:

South America


Notes:

because of error of appearing/editing notes for both tables are repeated below the second

Questions to IP 65.x/14x that opposes these tables
1. About wich of these 7 islands do you agree that they are Caribbean islands: A: All are Caribbean islands -- i.e., West Indies. 67.68.47.253 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2. You argue about the divide North/South America. Where do you think that the line between them go in the Caribbean Sea? A: Depends on perspective; physiographically, the continental shelves/slopes seem to be determining factors. This is also much more difficult to broach (pending sourcing) since it calls into question other islands north of T&T (i.e., Lesser Antilles) that might be closer to SA mainland (e.g., Martinique) but are nonetheless generally reckoned with NA. Geopolitically, however, most publications include West Indies territories (and I'm distinguishing here between political entities and the mere islands that comprise them) with other territories in North America. Another interesting point is that of Panama: geopolitically, genereally included with other Central American territories of North America (which is more clearcut given location on the mainland of the continent). Physiographically, though, opinions differ: with the delimiter being the Panama Canal or further south along the Isthmus of Panama near Panama's border with Colombia, where it connects to the Colombian Pacific Lowlands in northwestern South America. 67.68.47.253 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, my point is that geopolitical issues have no place here. If we go with geopolitics we should include Guyana and Suriname into Caribbean and by your logic into North America. You don't want to do so, because for these two "it is obvious that they are SA", but I can give you MANY POLITICAL SOURCES that group Guyana and Suriname with the Caribbean island states. Thus we should leave geopolitics and stick to physical geography. Alinor 07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. My point is that we should note both, which the status quo tables already do.  I'm obviously not denying the importance of physiography/geology, but I will not cast geopolitical notions away, particularly in a table where territories are arranged accordingly.  To do otherwsie will also pose challenges, for instance, when classifying (physiographically) the Lesser Antilles given the diffuse nature of the continental shelf in the Caribbean -- i.e., NA or SA?  And you can provide sources indicating the Guyanas as Caribbean -- which they are (read article), that's fine (they are not of the West Indies, though (this term is generally limited to the islands of the Caribbean)) -- but you'll find many more obvious examples (cited and otherwise) that counterbalance. 67.70.62.241 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guyana/Suriname - Caribbean - West indies - you mix physical and political classification here. About the challenge of classification of the Lesser Antilles - the "deepest path over the seabed" part of the physical definition (look in school manuals) - Aruba, Bonaire, Curcao, Orchilla, Aves, T&T can be verifyied to be on the southern side of the deepest path by looking at any physical map that has sea depth lines (as well as mountain hight lines). If you find that some of the other islands are also on the southern side - OK, this can be easly checked and implemented in the articles.
 * 'School manuals' is insufficient. I have directed you to specific sources; be courteous and do the same.  Topographical maps do vary when representing the continental shelf: in the Caribbean, the shelf is diffuse so I want citations indicating these islands physiogrqphically belonging to SA ... which you still haven't done.  And yes: nothing exists in isolation so I can mix and match terminology.  As for Guyana/Suriname, futher discussion is pointless.  65.92.173.131 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources that you provided are covering the political aspects. I speak about physical. Guyana/Suriname are as much North American as T&T - both are physicaly in South America, but politicaly aligned with the Caribbean states, thus with the presumption that Caribbean equals North American - they are North American. The only reason why you (and the political prespective sources) do NOT put them there is the common sense that you so much dislike (but actualy use in this case). Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is debatable what is the "status quo" version. Also, when you insist so much on the "north americanness" of particular islands - please, try to find a physical geography description that says "Aruba is one of the north american islands in the Caribbean". Anyway, we again reach to our disagreement point - you want political/human-related geography as main defining point of continents - I want physical geography. In these tables the UN regions (political geography subordinated to physical) are used as SECOND LEVEL classification - AFTER we put all states with "a bit" physicaly South American territory - THEN we arrange them in the corresponding UN regions. The same is for Asia - FIRST we put Russia there (because of its Siberian and other territories), then we note that it is in Eastern Europe UN region; FIRST we put Turkey there (because of Anadolia and other territories), then we note that it is in Western Asia UN region. Same for SA - FIRST we put Aruba there (as it is a South American island), then we put it in Caribbean UN region (with a note about NA of course). Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are making little sense here. Again, I have provided numerous sources that, through tables or maps delinaeate, say, include T&T and Aruba in North America.  I am not denying that said territories are physiographically on another continent -- this is already accommodated for through notes.  However, the other examples you cite deal with territories where clear lines of demarcation exist: consult Natl Geo Atlas of the World for a demarcation line through Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey for Europe/Asia.  My point is that the islands of the Caribbean are not as clear-cut, e.g., what of the other Lesser Antilles?  The continental shelf is very diffuse in the Caribbean, as it is in the Malay Archipelago.  And your talk of second-level, etc. isn't really making much sense either. 65.92.173.131 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By first/second level I mean that physical aspects are leading, and political/UN regions are used only for classification INSIDE the PHYSICALY DEFINED CONTINENT. Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned the definition of the demarcation line between north- and south- islands in the Caribbean - the deepest path in the Sea that can be seen on any map with deep/hight-topographic-lines. As I already said - T&T, Aruba, Orchilla, etc. are on the southern side of this path, thus South American. What do you don't agree here (in physical aspects, regardless of the political affiliation of the islands)? Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3. What do you disagree with in the following: "the islands on the southern side of the deepest path of the Caribbean Sea are south american" and "the islands on the SA continental shelf are south american"? A: If these assertions can be sourced, great; however, they seem unclear and have poor syntax so I reserve judgement on them. It is probably more accurate to say that T&T, e.g., lie on the South American continental shelf (depending on source/depth used to gauge this, e.g., 200 m) or that they are a part of SA physiographically, not that they are South American or belong to South America ... again, interpretations! 67.68.47.253 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, poor syntax. Also, T&T is not mentioned here - this is "general definition". We simply can agree or disagree with a definition. T&T has nothing to do with this. Alinor 07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with the intent (read: geologically, continents extend to the continental shelf/slope and include islands on them), but I do disagree with the wording/this definition ... regardless of whether T&T is included. Please provided a cited definition; I can if necessary. 67.70.62.241 14:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * you can aways reword/make better syntax. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please source the above. I will reword, but your recent wording/approach really sucks.  I will edit as needed within the prior table arrangement. 65.92.173.131 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Do you agree that "Trinidad, Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, La Tortuga Island, Aves Island and Orchilla Island are north american islands"? A: Again, this is a matter of perspective; see 1. The West Indies are typically included in listings of North American territories, not South. As per the UN geoscheme et al., as cited/sourced: Trinidad, Tobago, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles (Bonaire, Curaçao, et al.) should be included with NA, the others (Aves Island, La Tortuga Island, and Orchilla Island) with SA (islands of/polities within Venezuela). 67.68.47.253 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Alinor 07:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * UN geosheme does NOT put Caribbean into North America. The UN geosheme has no North America - it has Northern America (above Mexico), Central America, South America, Caribbean. The bulk of the Caribbean UN region is in North America, as is the bulk of the Central America and the whole of Northern America. But small parts of UN regions Central America and Caribbean are in South America.Alinor 07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong: please see the note regarding North America (b). 67.70.62.241 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, this only supports a thing, that I said here and that I don't argue about - the bulk, but not the whole of Caribbean and Central America UN regions are located in physical North America. Just as the bulk, but not the whole of Eastern Europe UN region is located in Eastern Europe. We argue here about the "small parts outside NA", not about the bulk NA parts. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WTF? You seem to morph the discussion to suit your needs.  I have cited reliable, multiple sources -- verifiable ones -- to corroborate my position.  Really, you still haven't.  Is this so difficult to do?  And considering that you are the one who is insinuating changes onto the tables, you must prove your case.  And until you do and start making sense, I cannot comment on this further and will restore prior ones.  65.92.173.131 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I speak about physical location, not political affiliations as per sources that you provide. You are the one that is insisting on changes, you do not simply want to change one or two states, you want to change the general idea of the table - from physical to political. This is the issue and until consesus is reached on this point I will continue to revert your edits. Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the UN geosheme is used only for sub-regional classification, because it does not follow exaclty the geographical features - if follows state borders (pure example: Russia - per the UN sheme the whole North Asia is in Eastern Europe. But again, because this is "obvious common sense" - you don't argue with putting Russia in Asia).Alinor 07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is your opinionating. And this discussion does not concern Russia: which is in one region (Europe) for statistical ease.  I can at least provide reliable sources (e.g., Natl Geo Atlas of the World) for a clear demarcation between Europe and Asia and justification thereof.  If you could so so in this discussion, we'd be better off. :) 67.70.62.241 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Explained above, why the UN geosheme is not used for LEADING, but SECONDARY classification for these tables. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is your abstraction, one I do not agree with.65.92.173.131 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the main issue that we argue about - physical vs. political, so sure that you don't agree. Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I'm unsure what is served by placing tables -- with whatever T&R means -- on each talk page; shall I place the originals for comparison? This seems for not what but if it helps to resolve items, so be it. 67.68.47.253 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my initial idea, but I can't arrange them to be side-by-side (not one version below the other - this will complicate things). If you can - please, do so. Alinor 07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NP. 67.70.62.241 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The main point that I see we disagree:
 * You want the tables to be made according to geopolitical affiliations and not to physical location. reasons from your answers:
 * 1) using of UN geosheme for MAIN dividing lines (not only for sub-region classification)
 * 2) using of political maps and sources for MAIN definition - instead of using geographycaly defined features as dividing lines.
 * You really need to learn to phrase things properly, which is part of the reason why your notes and editions are being reverted. Political maps are a reflection of political geography, which is but one aspect of geography overall (see that article).  Physiography (physical geography) is another.  When you note 'geographically defined features', this is imprecise and incorrect: you should be saying 'physiographically', 'geologically', or even 'topographically'.  I am providing and deferring to perfectly legitimate (human) geographic features -- international boundaries and concomitant territories.  67.70.62.241 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, you got the idea already - you want to use political geography as MAIN defining line vs. I want to use physical geography as MAIN defining line and political/UN regions/etc. only for the subgroupping/SECONDARY regional classification Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the UN scheme (a fairly neutral one at that) reflects how other common publications (already indicated above) demarcate continents: Natl Geo, Collins, Encyclopedia Britannica. I am willing to amend the notes below the table or even add content to the article to reflect ambiguous territories (e.g., T & T part of South America physiographically due to it being on the SA continental shelf), but the tables -- oriented by regions and countries (read, geopolitical entities) -- should be as is. 67.70.62.241 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We came again to the same thing - does your common publications define in physical geographic sense T&T and Aruba as north american islands? Because then we should list Venezuela in NA too as consequense of its Aves and other islands of this island chain. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, these reliable sources (and please stop being deprecating by saying 'your', which implies that this is solely my position) typically include those territories in North America. They make no mention of them being part of South America (despite discussions, pointers elsewhere etc.) 65.92.173.131 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I use "yours" as short for "that you provided", nothing more. Again - you provided political and not physical. Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The main disparities resulting from this geopolitical division that you insist upon:
 * 1) "obvious common sense" is applied where "widely known" physical features contradict geopolitical affiliations (Suriname, Guyana not put in North America)
 * This is a red herring. 67.70.62.241 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This, combined with the second point, shows why I prefer using physical geography instead of political geography for the continental tables. After all continent is NOT a political formation, but a physical one. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite multiple requests, You have not at all qualified your 'widely known statements' with sourced matter, so I'm unwilling to cut you slack. Countries on continents are geopolitical entities.  And, again, I will note the case of Euorpe which, depending on source is not a continent in the physical sense (part of Eurasia). 65.92.173.131 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Countries are geopolitical, that is why a single country can be on two continental tables (as Panama and Netherland Antilles) and a single country can be physicaly on one continent, but politicaly aligned with states from another continent (as T&T, Guyana, Suriname). Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) "not so obvious common sense" is NOT applied where "not so widely known" physical features (that you argue about or not?) contradict geopolitical affiliations (T&T, Aruba, Bonaire, Curcao put in North America)
 * I will not cater to arguments about 'common sense': please, as before, cite information that we can verify in accordance with Wp policies and procedures. I do not disagree with notions regarding continents/continental shelfs, etc. (obviously) but your lack of sourcing and poor syntax is problematic.  67.70.62.241 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the quotes around common sense are because of this. I explained below the first point about the meaning of these two. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As above; you have not explained things very well. And 'common sense' is still a matter of opinion. 65.92.173.131 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should include Guyana in North America?! Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alinor 07:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) arbitrary division of common island chain, because of political affiliation (you put Aruba, Bonaire, Curcao in one continent and their sister islands Aves Island, La Tortuga Island, Orchilla Island in another continent)
 * This is not arbitrary, but based on political geography and a cited scheme. 67.70.62.241 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, that's exactly the problem that I try to show you - it is better to use physical than political geography. Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is distressing. This is not me doing so, the UN and others have organised territories as such, so I do not see how this is problematic.  65.92.173.131 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I will comment on Asia/Oceania shortly; gotta run. 67.70.62.241 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits are disagreeable. I will make editions to the prior tables that reflect other perspectives.  65.92.173.131 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edits are disagreeable - using political affiliation as main distingushing feature for inclusion into a continental list - INSTEAD of physical location. I will make editions to revert to the prior version that refletcs the physical aspects. Alinor 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Territories table - physical or political
I suggest that the main argument for inclusion of a state in the table should be that it has at least a part of its territory in the physicaly defined South America (including south american islands of course). After all a continent is physical formation, not a political one. User IP 65.x/14x suggests that we should stick to political geography, thus excluding some island states. The problem, in my opinion, is that going with political geography will make some disparities (according to physical geography) like separating Aruba-Bonaire-Aves-Orchilla chain in different continents only becasue they were not all spanish (see discussion above). Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Continents are physiographic formations, of course, but countries/dependencies are geopolitical entities. The table lists these territories and regions in accordance with a neutral scheme that also harks of arrangements in other common publications (reliable sources). The original tables already accommodated for this dichotomy. As well, above editor has not sufficiently sourced nor discussed changes to the initial tables, and I believe it appropriate to resotre thr priot tables until compelled otherwise. 65.92.173.131 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After all continent is NOT a political formation, but a physical one. Countries are geopolitical, that is why a single country can be on two continental tables (as Panama and Netherland Antilles - that are physicaly on two continents and of course politicaly a single entity) and a single country can be physicaly on one continent, but politicaly aligned with states from another continent (as T&T, Guyana, Suriname). Alinor 07:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alinor 07:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please stop reverting until we resolve your insisting on using political instead of physical classification.
 * 2) In the notes of the physical version the political affiliation of Aruba, T&T, etc. was already properly mentioned and reworded multiple times by various users.


 * And what is Europe? Shall I proceed over there and reallocate, e.g., the eastern Greek Aegean islands to Turkey?  No.  You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.  Again, the arrangements in the tables I promote hark of those in common publications (i.e., reliable sources), while your delineations are based on singular opining without source.  And bolding text ad nauseum doesn't make up for that nor for your sloppy argumentation.  At this point, further discussion seems moot.


 * And why don't YOU stop reverting? Who the hell are you?  And who are the various users; you and yours? Throughout, you have been intensely argumentative and unpleasant, often not making sense, and -- still -- have not provided ANY reliable sources to support the physiographic borders YOU assert.  I HAVE numerous times.  You may have a case, but at this point I am unwilling to yield given your apparent attitude.  You first insinuate edits surreptitiously, and then use the veneer of discussion to continually assert a position you believe is correct but cannot source and make edits of questionable quality (e.g., your addition upfront of details regarding the Antilles is rather clumsy grammatically and unencyclopedic.)  Anyhow, we are going in circles.  Until you can reliably substantiate your arguments and compel a consensus to retain your changes (which you haven't done), I see little reason to relent and will restore cited content ... i.e., arrangements and data before you decided to single-handedly f-ck it all up.  69.156.115.125 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) User "you" and "yours" are IP 14x/ 65.x, eg. you. I use bolding of the text so that to emphasis where is our disagreement - nothing more. Alinor 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) During your re-reverts you removed multiple times some other edits, unrelated to the debate, made by other people. If you insist on reverts, please at least be so kind to stop THIS aspect of your behaiviour. Alinor 07:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have apologised, but your edit warring and dubious edits make discerning good-from-bad edits difficult. I will be more judicious but until the quality of your edits improve or you desist, collateral damage can be expected to maintain article quality. 142.150.134.50 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think that my grammar and spelling at the discussion pages are important. On the other side - grammar and spelling on the article pages are important - if you discover any mistakes - you can of course correct them. BUT this has nothing to do with our debate here. Alinor 07:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure they are (and this also occurs on the actual article pages, not merely on the talk pages; see 'Panama' below): they reflect that your argumentation and defintinons are singular and not necessarily authoritative. Repeatedly, I have directed you to numerous reliable texts that corroborate my position. 142.150.134.50 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't think that by refusing to discuss your edits, you are prooving them to be correct. Alinor 07:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't refuse to discuss my edits -- I refuse to discuss them with YOU given your admitted gibbering, edit warring, POV-pushing, and repeated attempts to ram information down our throats that you cannot or will not corroborate. To do so with you further is pointless, though there is hope.  142.150.134.50 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You are breaking the consensus. You are the one that all of a sudden began to revert the physical continental tables to a political version. You have not provided ANY sources. The sources that you provide show only things, that I do not argue about - the information from your sources was already implemented in the notes below the tables. So the sources that you provide do not support your edits, eg. do not show why we should replace the continental table filled according to physical location that includes political notes where appropriate with another table that is filled according to political affiliation. I explained to you why this will not improve the quality of the articles - the disparities and inconsistensies that will come from this mix-match classification. Alinor 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong: you are the one that insinuates (and continues to) your unsourced, singular low-quality edits without discussion. In addition to the other sources above (and, again, your harping that my sources do not support my edits is nonsense), the Columbia Gazetteer of the World, a reputable and authoritative source and also available in a huge 3-volume set that I wish I owned, provides the following for North America (emphasis added):
 * North America includes all of the mainland and related offshore islands lying N of the Isthmus of Panama (which connects it with South America).... the term “Middle America” is used to describe the region including Mexico, the republics of Central America, and the Caribbean.... There are numerous islands off the continent’s coasts; the Arctic Archipelago, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, the Alexander Archipelago, and the Aleutian Islands are the principal groups.
 * read: all islands north of Panama, including the Lesser Antilles (which include T&T and the Leeward Antilles (the ABC islands, etc. west of T&T). Note also that Middle America (including the Antilles) is included in the entry for North America, not below.  How much clearer would you like it, or are you going to twist this too to suit your purposes?
 * and for South America:
 * ... fourth-largest continent ... divided politically into twelve independent countries— Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela—and the overseas department of French Guiana.
 * read: NO mention of either the islands of Trinidad and Tobago, the state, or the Leeward Antilles ... all of which are included in the Lesser Antilles in (the entry for) North America.
 * Your position of consensus implies there was one to begin with. I have provided numerous sources to support my edits, and I am merely restoring tables to the state (more or less) that they were in before you arrived to muddy them.  Your explanations without citation are insufficient, and the tables you promote do not reflect authoritative definitions nor sourcing of 'physical' descriptions, they only reflect YOUR definitions/beliefs about what they should be.  Based on the above and until you can source, cite, and compel for your definitions and not gibber your position continuously, I will continue to restore the original tables and I have nothing else to add. 142.150.134.50 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Panama?
Is partly a South American country? So before the Panama Canal was built it is whjolly no North America, then an artificial structure caused it to go to South America? -- Howard  the   Duck  07:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrected with Isthmus of Panama. Alinor 07:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure this is the way to intepret it, H. -- the country is of Central America, and Panama occupies a transitional position between North and South America on the isthmus. See below.  142.150.134.50 19:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, A.'s edition is incorrect: the country of Panama lies on the Isthmus of Panama: so 'east of' the isthmus means Colombia etc. Definitions generally indicate that North America extends along the entire isthmus (including Panama) to Colombia... so, if anything, all of Panama should be included in North America and, thus, I am reverting the recent change until something better can be arrived at. 142.150.134.50 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So the next questions is, is Isthmus of Panama = Panama, and where does the Isthmus start and end? -- Howard  the   Duck  14:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 14x/6x edit war
I suggest that the main argument for inclusion of a state in the table should be that it has at least a part of its territory in the physicaly defined South America (including south american islands of course). After all a continent is physical formation, not a political one. User IP 65.x/14x suggests that we should stick to political geography, thus excluding some island states. The problem, in my opinion, is that going with political geography will make some disparities (according to physical geography) like separating Aruba-Bonaire-Aves-Orchilla chain in different continents only becasue they were not all spanish (see discussion above). Alinor 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) IP 14x/6x, you are the one breaking the consensus. You are the one that all of a sudden began to revert the physical continental tables to a political version. You have not provided ANY sources. The sources that you provide show only things, that I do not argue about - the information from your sources was already implemented in the notes below the tables. So the sources that you provide do not support your edits, eg. do not show why we should replace the continental table filled according to physical location that includes political notes where appropriate with another table that is filled according to political affiliation. I explained to you why this will not improve the quality of the articles - the disparities and inconsistensies that will come from this mix-match classification. Alinor 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 14x/6x, your recent replies do not answer anything (eg. why to separate Bonaire from Aves?) and do not support your claims to politicaly delinate the continental tables. You continue to push for the political version and reverts without having consesus reached. Alinor 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, what are you talking about? I've provided clear authoritative sources above (not merely limited to political geography), or did you miss them?  Actually, if anything, they indicate all of the Leeward Antilles be included in North America, not the other way around.  Well here's another: in the North America entry in my volume of Encyclopaedia Britannica (hard-copy; p. 966), the Antilles Arc is depicted as a physiographic region of the continent.  Would you like me to scan this for you?


 * Throughout, YOU HAVE NOT provided reliable sources to support your edit warring -- the tables are not organised by true physical/physiographic lines but what you believe they are ... and I suspect you cannot debate because you are either unwilling or unable to. At this point, I don't care/disbelieve what 'you argue about' -- verifiability and citing sources are key.  I have done that.  Stop gibbering repeatedly, provide reliable sources yourself, and desist.  I will not reply to you further unless necessary and revert any of your edits that are not derived through consensus, discussion, or reliable sources. 142.150.134.61 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources that you provide ARE NOT RELATED to our disagreement. The data from your sources IS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IN THE ARTICLE. Alinor 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BS -- I defer to my prior comments.  142.150.134.61 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

History Section
I take offense at the wholesale removal of the section regarding pre-historical development of agriculture last night. While I do recognize that I should have slimmed it down a bit, leaving the longer version for the history page, the fact remains that before I did this this article had nothing on pre-history and only a very small section on Pre-Columbian history. At the same time, the article has a great deal of information about the colonial and post-colonial history which is obviously a form of bias, indicating that things happening in South America before the arrival of Europeans is unimportant. I have again added what I wrote, however I did cut it down in size by about half. The article needs to have something on prehistory as it does on all other periods of history. --The Way 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take offence so easily. My point was that the history section in this article should not be a duplicate of the content of History of South America. I deleted it from here, but I integrated your content into that page. Providing a summary of the material here, as you have done now, is fine.- gadfium 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, 'take offense' was a bit much, I just didn't want to see relevant information removed for the reasons I've stated. I hadn't realized that you had done any integration which is my fault.  Thanks.  --The Way 04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

History: explaination needed
In the history section it says, "In recent years South American governments have drifted to the left, with socialist leaders being elected in Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, and a leftist president in Argentina and Uruguay. Despite the move to the left, South America is still largely capitalist."

But why is it largely capitalist? I think this needs expanding upon. Kennard2 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

South America in World War II
I would be intrested in some history about south americas participation in ww2, apparently it was allied, but thats as far as i know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.233.18.116 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Aruba and other Dutch islands were blockaded by German U-Boats. And as far as I know the entire contienant was Allied but I don't know if any troops were contribuated or they were just Allies in spirit. 71.76.200.229 19:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

North and South America are two continents
I've removed this comment:
 * Depending on the source, South and North America are sometimes considered a single continent or supercontinent, while constituent regions are infrequently considered subcontinents.

Regardless of what some people may believe, it's a scientific fact that North America and South America are two separate continents. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's wise. India is not normally considered a separate continent from Asia, but it is a separate tectonic plate. I've read somewhere that some languages consider America to be a continent, and that's where the comment in the article comes from.- gadfium 07:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough; the plates don't strictly correspond to the continents. I've been told on Talk:North America that some parts of Latin America take the position that the Americas are a single continent, but this belief isn't cited, and it's, well, wrong from a scientific perspective. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as the way in which the word 'continent' is used conventionally, it varies from nation to nation. In the US we are taught that there are 7 continents and that South and North America constitute two of them.  However, in many other countries this is taught differntly and the two Americas are considered one continent.  There's been debate about how to use the terms on Wikipedia before since it requires discriminating via different classification systems.  I am not convinced that there is one single scientific understanding of 'continent' though I may be mistaken.  Instead, it hinges on what criteria you use to discriminate.  Does one land mass completely surrounded by water constitute one continent?  If so then North and South America are one continent and Asia, Europe and Africa are one continent.  Or do we allow a connection via a small isthmus (such as Panama b/w North and South America and the Sinai peninsula between Africa and Asia) to separate land bodies that are individually considered continents.  I'm not sure there is consensus on this.  Personally, given that we tend to divide articles along the 7-continent classification system I would be more likely to support considering North and South separate. --The Way 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose of the paragraph removed was not to argue that the Americas should be considered a single continent, just to point out that some countries/cultures consider them to be one. Since the definition of a continent differs from one country to another as The Way points out above, this is a valid point. Since English-speaking countries consider them two continents, the rest of the article treats them as such.- gadfium 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with this a bit; the concept of what constitutes a continent is pretty well defined:
 * Britannica: "Continent: one of the larger continuous masses of land, namely, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia, listed in order of size. (Europe and Asia are sometimes considered a single continent, Eurasia.)"
 * Encarta: "A continent is distinguished from an island or a peninsula not merely by greater size but also by geological structure and development (see below). The continents, in order of size, are Eurasia (conventionally regarded as the two continents of Europe, individually the second smallest, and Asia), Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia."
 * Dictionary definition: "one of the main landmasses of the globe, usually reckoned as seven in number (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica)."
 * I won't argue if someone reverts my change, but I would like to see some reliable sources regarding this. FWIW, I posted my thoughts on the subject here:  Talk:North America -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  15:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)