Talk:Chile

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

Peer review Chile received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chile article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Chile portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Chile; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Top This article has been rated as a Top priority article
WikiProject Countries      (Rated C-Class)
Geography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B
South America 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.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject CD Selection
Chile is included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see Chile at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages)
WikiProject Echo has identified Chile as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French, German or Spanish language Wikipedias.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (2004–2006 (mixed))
Archive 2 (Oct 2006-Mar 2008)

Bold text

Contents

[edit] PIB

The PIB PPP of Chile is 14.673 [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.84.243 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors at the Mexico page claim that its GDP per capita is "the highest in Latin America both in nominal and purchasing power terms." Is this right? Regards, Nononsenseplease (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article in Mexico says that it has the highest Gross National Income per capita (which is not the same as Gross National Product (slight difference, GDP calculates all production even by foreigners, GNI calculates all income, only of nationals). Also, the section was written in 2007, with the latest figures available (2006), and in the past tense "in 2006 Mexico had the highest...", which was true, according to the World Bank. The World Bank usually releases real calculated figures on a yearly basis, so, they released 2006 figures in 2007 (unlike the CIA which "estimate" GDPs for the current year). So, I assume that the World Bank would by now have released the figures for 2007, if you guys want to confirm if Mexico still had the highest income per capita in 2007. --the Dúnadan 16:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't edit the page

I'm adding this comment, since I CAN'T EDIT THE PAGE.

Before the Pacific War (the War of the Pacific) there was a War of the Confederation and also the peruvian expedition made by Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald also known as Lord Cochrane.

[edit] Statistics and propaganda

Can we please do away with all the favorable statistics in the intro. This does not belong here. This is not a Chilean government page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a government page, but it is an encyclopedia and the statistics and ranks enumerate what the article is basically about. Most, if not all of them are positive, which I think it the main reason why you remove them. You should read other country articles for comparison. Just because they are favourable it doesn’t make them "propaganda". I’ll give you random examples from other country articles:
United States
  • The United States is one of the world's most ethnically diverse nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.
  • The U.S. economy is the largest national economy in the world, with a nominal 2006 gross domestic product (GDP) of more than US$13 trillion (over 19% of the world total based on purchasing power parity).
Iceland
  • As of 2007, Iceland is the most developed country in the world according to the Human Development Index and one of the most egalitarian, according to the calculation provided by the Gini coefficient.
  • it is also the fourth most productive country per capita
  • have a rich culture and heritage.
Germany
  • It is the world's third largest economy by nominal GDP, the largest exporter of goods, ranked sixth in military expenditure, and is home to the third-highest number of international migrants.
  • Germany has developed a high standard of living and established a comprehensive system of social security.
I hope we have settled this for good. Another issue that I want to address is; you keep changing ranks and numbers in the country infobox template, and it looks like pure vandalism. According to List of countries by population density the density is 194th but you keep changing it to 160th, why is that? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

~Reverting the article/infobox from sourced information is an act of vandalism. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if they were statistics of medium or low importance, such as "number of nurses by capita". Placing things like that in the first paragraph would look like propaganda, yes. But things like National Income, corruption, and human development are highly relevant and you will find them at the beginning of almost any country article. Also, they come from independent sources, not the Chilean government. Perhaps we could reach a compromise. Do you know of any relevant statistics that make Chile look less favourable? Of course there is no reason not to include negative statistics in the the first paragraph, as long as they are relevant and from a reliable source. Cambrasa (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added back the contested paragraph to the intro, while restoring the integrity of the rest of the article. Now I will address some of the points:

1) Intro: I would agree with having a second paragraph in the intro as long as it presents balanced statistics within an historical or general context, as it is done in the United States article, and not just an enumeration of (mostly positive) figures one after another, with no added value. In the case of the Germany and Iceland articles, these stats are in a third paragraph and are about four lines in length (in my browser). The Chile "stats" paragraph is EIGHT lines long and the second and final paragraph, which looks totally unbalanced for an introduction.

2) Infobox: I've used information from the Wikipedia "list of countries..." pages. When the Wikipedia pages are outdated, I've gone straight to the source, in this case the IMF. If you want me to source it within the infobox, I could do that. Regarding the density ranking being different in the infobox to that from the Wikipedia page, it's because the Wikipedia page had wrongly ranked non-sovereign entities, which are never ranked on Wikipedia list pages (this is probably even a policy; I don't know), so I substracted from the Chile rank all those entities that are not sovereign. A further reason for doing this is because the ranking serves the purpose of comparing a country against others, and if we have some lists ranking countries following one criteria and other lists ranked in another criteria, it's misleading. I've used the same criteria, so the ranking holds some value.

☆ CieloEstrellado 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 1) The information in the intro that is included with verifiable sources is no different from the introductions that can be viewed in articles pertaining to other countries. Included in the intro is the fact that Chile has a high Gini coefficient which is essentially not something to be deemed as favorable.
  • 2) The Gini coefficient for Chile in the infobox is indeed 54.9 not 54 according to CieloEstrellado.
  • 3) The date of submitted research to determine the Gini coefficient for Chile is 2003 not 2006.
  • 4) List of countries by population density ranks Chile as 194th not 160th.
  • 5) Constantly deleting sources/citations from the History, Politics, and Economy sections is counterproductive. Properly referenced material is academically important which reinforces the factual basis of the information while providing validity.

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gini for 2006 is 54 according to the Casen poll. I've sourced this. I've also changed the density ranking back to 194th while I update the rankings in the list. You have been carelessly reverting this article, not realizing that your version contains a broken infobox (look at the malformed GDP tags). You are pushing a POV introduction with a long enumeration of favorable statistics to boost your ego. Shall I remind you this encyclopedia has a neutrality policy? Also, you've reverted this article four times within 24 hours, and if an admin notices it, it will get you blocked. Have a good day. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because there's no unfavourable stats it doesn't make the favourable stats propaganda. Feel free to add some unfavourable stats, if you can find them. There is no rule that says the stats have to be in the 3rd or 4th paragraph. Let's not get personal here. I'm not from Chile so I'm not boosting my ego, nor is Selecciones de la Vida. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I love what you did to the article, expanding the intro like that, brilliant. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you. It still needs some work, though. ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see why we would have to delete information which is based on VERIAFIABLE sources. Many other articles, which by the way have been listed above, contain favorable information because they’re based on FACTS and not propaganda. I don’t know what your agenda is, but I must remind you that unexplained edits and deletions are highly discouraged as per Wikipedia standards. Future behavior of that nature, can be considered as vandalism and/or POV pushing and wiil be promptly reported Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot generated title

What does bot generated title mean? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It means a computer program adds a title to a reference by scanning its URL. ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

I think IPA should be used to clarify the pronounciation. I came here looking for if it was Chil-ay, or Chil-ee, but it isn't shown. Grsz 11 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

in all spanish words the E is pronounced like in english bed.--200.27.116.218 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the question was how to pronounce "Chile" properly in English, I have heard both ways from english-speakers. Furthermore in Britain I hear people call me "Chilean" as it sounds E-A-N, but in the US is Chil-EE-A-N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.102.145 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalization of the article by Likeminas

User:Likeminas has been constantly reverting practically every edit I make, without explaining why. If you see his last reversion today, he reverted to a previously vandalized version of the article that had well established content removed and replaced some sourced information with false, unsourced information that had been added by anonymous vandals. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir; you have managed to get a bunch of people against your repetitive deletions and capricious edits. Your Talk-page speaks for itself.
Moreover, your contributions clearly indicate that you have recently engaged in edit warring, therefore, violating Wikipedia standards.
Judging by your own history of conflicts with other users, and your continuous POV pushing the only vandal I know of, it's you. Likeminas (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing, edit warring and vandalism by Cielo estrellado.

This user has pushed his POV very aggressively. Even by means of deleting properly sourced information which is relevant to the article. As we all know this is a serious offence since deleting relevant information with legitimate references not only amounts to POV pushing, but also to vandalism.

In addition to that, user:cielo estrallado has, as of today, engaged in edit warring with other contributors, another clear violation of Wikipedia’s rules and regulations…

These offenses have not been isolated events(see this) that's why I strongly believe that any other violations ought to be immediately reported to an administrator for further review. That's the only way to keep a clean and constructive environment.Likeminas 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

His latest reversion might need explanation, especially if it is contested by other users. In my opinion, citing that Chile was a founding member of the UN is quite irrelevant considering that there were 51 founding members a fairly large number of total number of independent States of that year. Exceptional cases are those that would be worth mentioning, like former members, non-members or members of the Security Council. But, this appreciation, of course, is subject to discussion. --the Dúnadan 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~I strongly support the inclusion of Chile presently being an active, original member of the United Nations. The information does not conceivably violate notability standards as previously suggested by CieloEstrellado. Current membership status is informative and also contextually applicable on a historical basis. Discussing the matter regarding issues of relevancy can lead towards a general consensus and is more reasonably justifiable than simply removing the content.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions come to my mind:
  • Why is current membership informative and contextually applicable [applicable to what?] in a way that it differs from the other 51 founding members or of the 192 actual members, so that a note has to be made about Chilean membership?
  • Your reference proves that Chile is a founding member—it is simply a list of countries with their year of ascension into the organization. However, it says nothing about "activity". Arguably, all members are "active". How do you define "active"? In what ways is Chile more "active" than the rest of the members so that a note has to be included as if it were more relevant than the rest? Do you have another reference that says that Chile's participation within the UN is more "active" than the rest?
My point is, in what ways is Chile's membership in the UN different from the rest of the countries? Should we have a similar note on all founding members? Maybe so, I don't know. This is the place to discuss the relevancy of that statement.
--the Dúnadan 12:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

~I will carefully explain my position and will begin by stating that Chile being more active than other members was never a point. I am gathering that in your argument something has to be different in order to make it relevant and that should never be the sole purpose. Historically being a member of the United Nations has enabled Chile to be an active global player diplomatically while also coordinating foreign policy. The following are a few examples of Chilean involvement with the U.N.

  • In 1945 Chile along with 50 other countries signed the United Nations Act in San Francisco which created the organization that has now grown to encompass 192 members. The following are a couple examples of involvements that Chile has with the U.N.
  • Chile has participated in United Nations peace-keeping missions since 1948. Examples include the Arab-Israeli ceasefire in 1948, India-Pakistan, and are now situated in Bosnia-Herzegovina, while also currently being involved in Haiti.
  • Chile only recently completed a two-year tenure as a non-permanent member on the Security Council a position where the country has been elected to serve in seven previous occasions.

In so many words Chile is an active member of the United Nations and has been since the start of the organization. The statement in the introductory overview is factually supported and relevant when discussing Chile. I would like to note that my previous introductions of the material onto the Foreign Relations segment of the article have also been deleted by CieloEstrellado with no explanation. If needed a source which includes Chilean U.N. activity can also be provided.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase my question, because it seems that it is not understood properly. What things is Chile doing within the UN that no other founding member does? The three points that you mentioned are applicable to all 51 founding members. If they all do the same, they are all active and founding members, which then makes any country's activity as relevant [or irrelevant] as the other. Should we write on all 51 founding members the same phrase? "The United States is an active and founding member of the UN", "Argentina is an active and founding member of the UN"? --the Dúnadan 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you put it that way,it indeed, sounds as an irrelevant line; however, not all the articles about a country are standardized or identical. Neither should they be.
I’m assuming some editors would like to keep that line, because Chile has, in some ways, played a more active role in recent peace keeping missions such as; Haiti and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
It might also be relevant that Chile was part of the Security Council during a time, when that body had to authorize the invasion of Iraq. As far, as I’m concerned only a handful of founding members took part in those processes.
In any case, I personally don’t mind omitting that piece of information; nonetheless, the socioeconomic facts that precede that sentence should not be omitted due to their high relevance. Deleting them without a proper discussion, as some users have been doing, is considered vandalism and dealing with that, is the specific purpose of this section. Likeminas (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~The information will be moved and added to the Foreign Relations section of the article.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMF plagiarizes Wikipedia's Chile article, takes credit

The IMF's Article IV report on Chile (dated Sept. 2007) has an incredibly similar table showing Chile's international rankings on page 10. The rankings included are the same, save for one or two. The columns are the same: Publisher, Index, Overall ranking, Lat. Am. ranking, Countries surveyed, Top % (labeled "Percentile ranking") and Date. To add insult to injury they put at the end of the copied table: "Source: Staff calculations". Shame on them for not giving proper credit! ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope the above comment was a satire. I would be surprised if the IMF, a reputable institution as it is, would copy content from us. Rather, I would suspect a user copied information from them, even if was summarized form a different page within the same IMF website. --the Dúnadan 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't satire. I constructed that table on January 27, 2007 based on a similar one at the Chile article on the Spanish Wikipedia, way before that IMF report was completed on June 25, 2007. (The International rankings section was created much earlier, on December 11, 2002, and was then copied onto the Spanish Wikipedia on November 20, 2004, but those early versions bear no resemblance to the version the IMF would copy later. The only reason I mention this is to note that the idea for this was present years before.) The "Top %" column was my idea (the IMF renamed it "Percentile ranking," which I concede is a better name that we should perhaps copy, heh heh). The names "Overall ranking" and "Countries surveyed" —also my own creation— were copied verbatim by the IMF. It is just obvious that the IMF plagiarized the table from us and took the credit. I feel honored and outraged... at the same time. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile article as a Carbon-Copy

Why is this article about Chile an exact copy of this website? http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1981.htm Just pay close attention to the History, Politics, Economy, Foreign Trade, Finance, Defense, Foreign Relations in the Chile article when comparing it to the Background notes on the US Department of State website.

In this article some of the parts such as Foreign Relations and Defense sections have been properly noted, while the History and Politics sections have been been plagarized. Should this even be common practice? Isn't it a disservice to just simply copy whole sections from another website which amounts to a large amount of text and simply transfer it over to Wikipedia an encyclopedia on its own right? I mean might as well state the obvious since the topic of plagarism has been brought up.CenterofGravity (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The US State Department country profiles are on the public domain. Nice try. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes parts of Chile. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/description/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

As a Chilean, I have never known that we are or were part of the Dutch Empire, but, I can tell you that by now we certainly are part of the US Empire. And ain't a joke...--Auslander71 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The intro is not based on reliable sources, at least not the whole of it. According to WP:Verifiability, all articles "must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". However, the claim that Chile is a leading country in terms of "economic freedom" was based on claims made on the websites of Freedom House, Heritage Foundation and Fraser Institute. The latter two are conservative right-wing think tanks and Freedom House is known for its connections to the political right, thus all of them are highly biased sources. And the CIA is completely unacceptable as a source on Chilean economic data given that it had played a major role in Pinochet's takeover ( and unbiased ones. Given the CIA record in Chile, any information it supplies on the economic situation must be dealt with mistrust and should at least be backed by other more reliable sources.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

~The CIA World Factbook uses the following sources.

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


~The Index of Economic Freedom is a product of the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal which as a major newspaper falls under the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards for reliable sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.)

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim about "economic freedom" I would only doubt the general consensus on this issue as long as only right-wing think tanks are cited. I would however not object to a more careful phrasing acknowledging that this is only one position held on the issue. (For example "Chile is a leading country ... and has often been listed as a leading country in terms of economic freedom").
The problem with the CIA-handbook is that they do not explicitly state on which of the sources their information is based so that it is not possible to directly use the cited sources. Not all of the listed ones are free of political interests with regard to economic and foreign policy issues, so it would be relevant which one has been cited. And given that the CIA handbook is not the result of peer-reviewed scientific work, their selection of sources would also be an issue.
There should be at least one more source for the claims. I would expect that it should be easy to find further sources on such a fundamental issue as the poverty line.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The new sources are good ones though, according to the UNDP ranking, Chile would be second to Argentina in the Latin America context. However, I can live with this version. I have only added the word "comparatively" given that the national population living under the poverty line is still over 10% according to the Economist article.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have inserted the old sources while replacing the new ones without a comment. I have reinserted the newer sources as I don't see a reason for removing them and don't consider the old ones reliable.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

The real meaning of the Chilean motto "Por la Razon o la Fuerza", translate as, "By the Reazon or the Force".Auslander71 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But I don't think that's the offically accepted translation. To be honest, by right or might sounds a lot cooler, in my ears. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


i think is more accurate to say: BY REASON OR BY FORCE by right means DERECHO and the Motto says RAZON and might would be power.....and the motto says FORCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.184.165 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Flora

how come on this website you can see everything about chile but it isn't summarised in some part and you have to read the whole topography or geography section to get any information on Flora. there should be a part on plant life in Chile!!!!!!! who's with me on this. do not trust wikipedia because people can change things to the wrong things on topics.71.10.230.14 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always register an account on wikipedia and add content to the article. There is nothing stopping you adding the content you think is missing once you are registered (I think it takes just 4 days to stop being a "new user" and then beingable to edit semi-protected articles.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would you specify at the beginning of the article, the pronunciation of República de Chile

The current IPA symbols used for the pronunciation: Spanish pronunciation: [re̞ˈpuβ̞lika ð̞e̞ ˈtʃile̞] Would anyone who has got access on the article specify this as other homologous articles do? 84.120.160.88 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racist and Xenophobic vandalism on this article by User:Sclua

Following a series of edit warring (explained in his talk-page) in order to prevail his POV, this user has decided to attack the article of Chile a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

I also received an insult from him: "nobody say 'red bars', southamerican!!". That's exactly what this xenophobic and racist user just called me. It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... But because I have some userboxes in my user page about Chile, user Sclua is consistently attacking this article. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

Some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

I therefore ask any editor of this article to undo any of his racist and despective comments and warn him in his talk page in order to stop this regrettable behaviour. Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

May I notice to other editors that User:Sclua is capable of censoring their posts by blanking them, as he just did with mine here above. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 17:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to resort to personal attacks with regards to national origin. Maurice27 is right, that comment from Sclua is absolutely unacceptable in Wikipedia. Sclua should be warned not to engage in that kind of behavior, and advised to debate peacefully. --the Dúnadan 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean notes currently in circulation

The $500 note is replaced by the currently valid $500 coin, 8 years ago aprox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.47.138.142 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also can't edit the page

It is one of only two countries in South America that does not have a border with Brazil.

This should be "one of only two countries in South America that do not have a border with Brazil."

[edit] Internet users in chile

Could some one please add to the Infobox:

  • 43.2% of the population are internet users. (7,035,000 internet users by 2008)[1]

thank you! --Fkemeny (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology verification

According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest.

Because of recent edits this theory needs further verification of Tili who is either an Araucanian tribal chief, or an Inca chief.

  • Corruption of the name - Would the Inca corrupt the name of their own chief?
  • Valley of the Aconcagua is located in central Chile, region inhabited by Araucanians (Mapuche).
  • A Reason for the mention of the Inca failing to conquer the Araucanians? Could it be to show that Tili was an Araucanian tribal chief during the invasion?

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In South America there existed a series of different peoples. Whether Aconcagua was or was not populated by Mapuches, the area still got conquered by the Inca Empire. Of course, the Incas did not conquer all of southern South America (apparently because they got tired of fighting with the Mapuche for what they seemed to consider a useless place). Also, if this "Tili" was not a Mapuche and instead was actually just some tribal chief of the area from a distinct Native American tribe, then the mention of the Inca's failure to conquer the Araucanians would actually be pointless in that particular paragraph.--MarshalN20 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

Selecciones de la Vida and CieloEstrellado: Can we please stop with the edit warring that has been going on for too long now? I don't even know who is right or wrong, but is there anyway that someone can either just let it go, or better yet, discuss it on the talk page to come up with a solution/compromise? Kman543210 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be hard, considering that Selecciones does not agree to compromises. It's rather sad, though, as this article has a great potential.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious personal grudge that MarshalN20 carries against me, and the self-explanatory subject heading made by another user regarding CieloEstrellado, I revert the unexplained removal of sourced content and images without consensus in good faith. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not create "Straw Man" ideas that I have a grudge against you. Learn to keep civility in an article. The subject heading on CieloEstrellado only shows a POV idea that is just as aggresive as your comment that states I have a grudge against you. Please do not create an issue out of a minor discussion. Thank you.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aconcagua and Mapuche

Comparing both pictures, one being of the Mapuche territory and the other dealing with the Aconcagua River:

Image:Mapuche map.jpgImage:Mapa Río Aconcagua.png

It seems quite apparent that the Mapuche were not in the Aconcagua valley as the river (and valley) flows above Santiago. As a result of this, there is no need to mention of the Inca's failure to conquer all of the Mapuche.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Incas had an effective occupation as far as the Maipo River, 30 to 50 kms south of today's Santiago. As an evidence of that, there is a Pucará (Fort) in the shores of the Maipo river. Besides that, and noting that I'm in no way affirming that the Mapuche actually occupied the Maipo valley, there are at least historical accounts (I do not have my history books with me now) of Incan attemps to conquer the Mapuche people.--Wgarciamachmar (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We're not dealing with the Pucara fort or any other place that does not relate to the Aconcagua valley. The Mapuche were not in the valley, and unless a source can be provided to prove that they were in the valley then there is really no need to mention the Incan invasion of the Mapuche in that particular sentence.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Picunche were living in the region of Chile during the time, and were classified as Araucanians by the Spanish.[2]
Are the Picunches actually Mapuches? If not then, yet again, there is no need to mention the Inca's failed conquest of the Mapuche in that particular sentence. Also, taking into account that the Spanish also thought El Dorado was real and that the Fountain of Youth was somewhere in Florida, taking their errors as correct is obviously out of the question. The Mapuche are what people associate as the Araucanians. The Picunche, if not Mapuche, were simply their own tribe much like the Chimor and the Chanca were before the Incan conquest.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica has the Picunches classified under Araucanians.[3] Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you got that correct. Yet, that raises another question, and quite a deep one at that. If the Picunches are what could be called an "Araucanian" tribe, then the statement mentioning the Incas would actually have to go along the lines of: "...whom were not able to completely conquer the Araucanians..." The Picunches were conquered by the Incas, but the Mapuches were not conquered. Therefore, if you're going to want to include any sort of mention to the Araucanians, and since you ratify that the Picunches can be considered Araucanians, then the correct statement is to say that they were not completely conquered. In other words, you can't simply state that the Incas "failed to conquer the Araucanians" because the Incas did conquer the Picunches.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The other option is to simply not make mention of the "Araucanian" term since it is an old term that many Native Americans from that zone take as offensive. The Mapuche were the tribe that the Incas were not able to conquer, but the Incas called the Araucanians. The Picunches were conquered by the Incas, but apparently they were also Araucanians. This option is really up for you guys to decide. I'm not from Chile, and hence this article really does not involve me as much as it would if it was from my nation. Just remember my previous statement that if you wish to include the Araucanians, which I repeat that modernly the term is offensive to Native American groups, then you must include that the Incas did not completely conquer them and you must not say that the Incas failed at their conquest since they did conquer what they called "Araucanian" tribes (They only failed to conquer the Mapuche). I hope I made myself clear. Thank you for the sources and support.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Picunche are the so-called "Mapuche of the north", and the Huilliche are the so-called "Mapuche of the south." ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what they are "called" does not necessarily prove they are part of the Mapuche. For instance, the Incas are sometimes called the "Romans of the Americas," but that does not mean the Incas are Romans.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Mapuche" has two meanings. The Mapuche people broad sense are all the groups who had speak Mapudungun and call[ed] themselves mapuche ("people of the land"): Picunche people, who lived between Aconcagua River and Itata River and were conquered by Incans (pikumche="people of north", a name given by Mapuche narrow sense), Huilliche, between Toltén River and Chiloe Island (williche="people of south", idem), Cunco people in the Chacao Channel zone, Pehuenche people, in mountain valleys of Biobio Region and Araucania (pewenche="people of the puzzle monkey tree"), many groups in Argentina, like Ranqueles, Chadiche and "Pampas", and the Mapuche people narrow sense, who are Mapuche people living in Araucania. However, Mapuche people from Araucania who dwells in lowland calls Wenteche (wente="up") to Mapuche people from Araucania who dwells in highland, conversely, they calls them Nagche (nag=down). Then, Incans conquered a part of Mapuche people broad sense: Picunches. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: The first map shows Mapuche traditional territory in 20th Century only. Lin linao (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC).
That was an enjoyable cultural lesson. Nonetheless, do you mean to say that the Picunche are their own tribe that just happen to also be considered part of the Mapuche in a "broad sense"?--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your question. Historical Picunches (not a contemporary literally northern Mapuche group from 8th Region) were a northern branch of Mapuche people [always in a broad sense] who shared many similarities with Mapuche from Araucania. In fact, Picunche is only a modern [academic] name for culturally extinct inhabitants of Central Chile that: a) Spoke Mapudungun, b) Were below Incan rule and cultural influence, and c) Were more sedentary and less hostile than Mapuche from Araucania. However, a part of Picunches made war against Incans and Spaniards too and they were called in Quechua language purum awqa="wild foes"> Purumauca> Spanish es:Promaucaes. I only know texts in Spanish, like "Historia General de Chile", by Diego Barros Arana. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to the Wikipedia article on this subject, the Picunches were simply people that spoke Mapudungun; just like the Mapuche. Yet, in the Andean region of Peru there were also several peoples, aside from the Inca, that spoke a form of Quechua. For instance, if I'm not wrong, the Chanca peoples spoke a type of Quechua. Yet, that does not mean that they were from the same tribe as the Incas. Similarly, even though the Picunches spoke Mapudungun, that does not mean they were a part of the Mapuche. In other words, the Incas conquered the Picunches, but did not conquer the Mapuches. In relation to the article, then there exists no need to include anything related to the Inca's failure to conquer the Mapuche in that particular section that only deals with the Picunche. It's nice to find somebody who knows about history. I'm not too adept on Chilean history to hold a one-on-one discussion on the matter, but what little I do know on this subject means to serve a good purpose. Still, if the modern academic community wishes to separate these tribes as two, then the section must go according to the flow of the people that allegedly know of these things. Thanks for your help!--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There are many unresolved issues about unity or not unitiy of old Mapudungun-speking groups (Picunches, Mapuches n.s. and Huilliches), known as "Mapuches" or formerly "Araucanians", because they were scattered along 1200 Km (~700 miles) and didn't have noticeable dialectal differences and the cultural ones for Picunches vs Mapuches and Huilliches (towns, fortresses, metalcraft) can be explained by Incan influence. About Incan fail against Promaucaes there is a tale of Inca Garcilaso de la Vega that it is a no proven history. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the recorded history of those times is generally not proven as a fact, but simply accept as such due to a lack of more evidence. Also, just like you mention, the lack of history often makes it difficult to know whether a tribe was actually a part of a larger "kingdom" or "chiefdom." It's generally easy to talk about ancient Europe and the many kingdoms, but when dealing with America it simply becomes harder to know whether one group was independent or simply part of a larger society. Aside from that, there's no need for thanks. You seem to really do know about the Mapuche history much more than I do, and certainly much more than other users in this page. Added that your contributions to Wikipedia seem to have been highly productive. I suppose this issue is then resolved, but if you need help with something here in Wikipedia, feel free to contact me through my talk page. Happy editings.--MarshalN20 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CieloEstrellado continued RVs

I have brought the following issue to the attention of user CieloEstrellado on his User Talk page, but he continually refuses to reply. This is a last resort to get some administrator to do something about this guy.

I want to avoid a confrontation with him in the form of editwarring, and many might see that he is engaged in two wars already with other users. The following is the post i made on his talk page

"Regarding our specific issue, I would like to bring up the use and context of "Israelitas" as found in the Spanish language source from the University of Chile currently being used as a reference for the demographics section of the article Chile.

I would like to point out some fundamental flaws to your argument:

1) The Spanish word "Israelitas" translates into English as "Israelites". That is quite simple, and irrefutable.
2) In Spanish, the word Israelitas, to all my available knoweledge and research (including from RAE) is used interchangeably with the word Jews (in the sense of modern Jews), not just to refer to the ancient Israelites as it is used in English. And modern Jews, may be of any colour or race.
3) The context in which the word "Israelitas" is used in the source clearly implicates it to be European (Ashkenazi) Jews since "Israelitas" is mentioned as [in relation to] one of several small waves of "inmigrantes blancos" (White immigrants) to Chile. The source obviously does not mean to imply non-White Jews such as Ethiopian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Indian Jews, etc.
4) Most importantly, the state of Israel did not exist at the time Jewish immigration to Chile which is spoken of in the source! That is the most fundamental of your flaws. Israel did not yet exist, so the source does not use "Israelitas" in the sense of Israelis, because Israelis did not yet exist at that time to be able to immigrate to Chile. Israelis never emigrated to Chile because Israelis did not exist yet. It was Jews from Europe that immigrated, and it is in that sense, the sense of Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants to Chile that the source uses "Israelitas", NOT in the sense of Israelis.
4) Israelis includes Jews of all colours and races, not just White Ashkeanzi Jews, and if the source uses Israelitas in the sense of Israelis (as you keep claiming) then it would include all the non-White Israeli Jews too. Furthermore, "Israelis" includes non-Jews as well."

You will notice that the user continued with his nonsense, without even giving a reason, or stating his case. It was bad enough when he mistranslated the source to say "Israelis", a denonym for citizens of a country which did not exist at the time of the immigration to Chile referred to by the source, but now he's made the error of literal translation. So the article now says Israelites immigrated to Chile. Do me a favour! Someone stop the fool. When that user has a whim, he'll follow it and push it even after he realises he's in the wrong, just to save face, whatever the expense, even if it's to the detriment of the article he initially set out to make better. This is not a place for egos. There is no agenda behind correcting the mistranslation into its proper context. The proper translation of Israelitas in this case is as "Jews", and in the context of the source, it refers specifically to the small wave of European Ashkenazi Jews that historically arrived during that time. Al-Andalus (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. backing of 1973 coup?

The U.S. funded general Viaux' plotting, but withdrew their support before he took action. It seems to be this that mr. Kornbluh of the leftist National Security Archive (not to be mistaken for a public authority) refers to when he claims that CIA funded the coup, and not the Pinochet coup. I haven't found evidence of American involvement in that; to the contrary, Kissinger and Nixon agreed to stay out of a possible coup in September 1973, and after it happened, they felt no complicity in it, according to telephone transcripts. See Kissinger and Chile. --Jonund (talk) 18:16, 34 October 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo