Talk:Chile/Archive 3

PIB
The PIB PPP of Chile is 14.673 [] —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 D únadan  16:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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 fo yo 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) Let me tell you about my best friend! He's the person in the world to me

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)

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)

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)

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)

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… p izza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.111 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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 D únadan 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 D únadan 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 D únadan  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)

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 D únadan 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)

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)

Chile in the Dutch Empire
Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire, 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/wiki/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. 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)


 * They conquered Valdivia and Chiloé at some point. See Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas Locoluis (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the cited description, the "conquest" can merely be considered as a series of battles between the Dutch pirates and the Spanish Armada (1600, for "a few months"; in 1642 and in 1643 for a few months too). Besides, there is no historical account of any effective domination of the land by the Dutch Empire. Besides, no sources are cited.--Wgarciamachmar (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source listed here is self-published and not in accordance with Verifiability. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Antarctic Information Program (National Science Foundation)
 * Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (Department of Defense)
 * Bureau of the Census (Department of Commerce)
 * Bureau of Labor Statistics (Department of Labor)
 * Central Intelligence Agency
 * Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs
 * Defense Intelligence Agency (Department of Defense)
 * Department of Energy
 * Department of State
 * Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior)
 * Maritime Administration (Department of Transportation)
 * National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (Department of Defense)
 * Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Department of Defense)
 * Office of Insular Affairs (Department of the Interior)
 * Office of Naval Intelligence (Department of Defense)
 * US Board on Geographic Names (Department of the Interior)
 * US Transportation Command (Department of Defense)
 * Oil & Gas Journal

~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 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)

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)

Would you specify at the beginning of the article, the pronunciation of República de Chile
The current IPA symbols used for the pronunciation: 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)

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 D únadan 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.151.241 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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.

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


 * 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 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)

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



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.


 * 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. 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)


 * The Incas conquered the Picunche, aka "Mapuche of the north." Hence, the Incas did conquer part of the Araucanians. Yet, there is no reason as to why such weasel words should be used in the article. This discussion has already been discussed with Wikipedia NEUTRAL editors. This is the last warning I'm providing.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 13:41, 21 December 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)

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)

animals?
is there anything in this article about animals at all? nothing in the geography section.... IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there should be a Flora and Fauna section? Is this available in any other country pages? ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Incas’ conquest of present-day Chile.
I previously added a small and brief mention of how the Incas came to contact with the Mapuches and how the latter fiercely prevented any further conquest of their lands past the Maule River. user CieloEstrellado, has unilaterally deleted this important piece of information and replaced it with the incomplete and rather inaccurate explanation that the area’s natural barrenness prevented further Inca expansion. The Incas conquered many inhospitable and hard to reach places within South America, and while the natural barrenness of present-day Chile might have played a role in their halt to conquest lands further down south, The Mapuches’ fierceness played an even more important role in their failure to do so. I will add this information again, as I think it gives a more accurate account of Chilean history and its native population. If there are any objections to my addition, please discuss it here with me and other Wikipedians before you attempt to remove it. Thank you Likeminas (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems, Selecciones de la Vida restored the deleted mention.
 * Please discuss any changes to that information here.
 * Likeminas (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S. intervention in Chile
I added a small piece of information relating to the U.S. intervention after Allende’s election to the presidency. Which coincidentally was also deleted by user CieloEstrellado without any discussion. Declassified documents relating to the Military Coup show an indirect (if not direct) link between the U.S. government reaction and its handling of Allende’s rise to power in Chile. The documentation regarding this matter is plentiful, not only from the American side, but also from the Chilean side, in addition to many international reports. I could definitely provide more reliable sources if need to be. That’s why I will be re-adding this brief mention of this important historical development in the history section. Again, if there are any objections to my input, please take a moment to discuss why this consice piece of information should not be part of the article. Likeminas (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chile

 * Colo-Colo has only won 28 national championchips, no 48. LOL.
 * Colo-Colo has won 46 national titles when you combine the championships obtained in both the amateur and professional era of Chilean football and also other domestic tournaments such as Copa Chile. Colo-Colo has also won three international championships bringing the total to 49. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Entonces hay que distinguir, pues los títulos obtenidos en Copa Chile y los de la era amateur no cuentan como campeonatos nacionales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.241.56.122 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Chilean Spanish
This article says:

..." English language learning and teaching is popular among students, academics and professionals, with some English words being absorbed and appropriated into everyday Spanish speech, although they might seem unrecognizable due to Non-native pronunciations of English.[77]"...

I believe this part of the article is unacceptable since it has traits of xenophobia. When I read, it seems clear that was not made in good faith. I am convinced that in probably all countries of the world where English is not the first language, some pronunciations are not immediately recognizable to a native English-speaking.

Moreover, the reference cited (77) has no connection with the text.

Therefore, I request to delete this part of the article due is not verifiable and for being xenophobic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna2007 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't read any xenophobia in it, but I agree the source doesn't refer to the use of English in Chilean Spanish at all, so I've removed that last phrase, and the ref along with it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chile people may want to have a say. Mass deletion vote for Chile Foreign relations today.
There's currently a mass deletion vote going on for foreign relations of Chile going on. Chilean people may want to have a say on if article's involving their country should be up for deletion.

See here:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Chile-Whatever_relations

CaribDigita (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Economy section
is very long considering it has its own article. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * history section as well. LibStar (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * they might be long, but we shouldn't just delete something without discussing why we think they should be left out.

Likeminas (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess one can use their judgement, but we're not deleting material, merely moving into a more appropriate article. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure one could his or her judgement, but who's to say what's in and what's out?
 * How do we determine what's appropiate judgement???
 * I personaly belive, it's imperative that we discuss and reach a consensus on what and why certain information should be "moved".
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

for starters much of the economy section is a direct copy and paste from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1981.htm which is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. we should summarise and use multiple sources where possible. the section is heavily reliant on this source. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong once again. The U.S. government most of the time (if not all the time) does not claim any copyrights on their material.
 * Let me quote what the State department says about it:


 * Links to State Department sites are welcomed. Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the State Department’s main website is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.
 * http://www.state.gov/misc/87529.htm


 * See? The information is absolutly usable and fully complies with GNU. Please refer to WP:C for more info.


 * Now if you have more source to add, please do so. The more sources we have, the better.
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV in lead
this seems blatant opinion to me, and quoting a travel guide doesn't cut it. '''It is, without doubt, one of the safest and most relaxing South American countries to travel in. Its public transport systems are moderns, its inter-regional buses are comfortable and run on time. Chileans are polite, respectful, friendly and discreet.''' 210.56.71.84 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where do you see that so we can fix it?
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

copihue
copihue=chilean bellflower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.226.149 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oil production in Chile
This site: [] shows that chilean oil production is small and is falling in the last decades.Agre22 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Lead
The lead claimed that the Chilean conflict was one of the bloodiest in the 20th century Latin America. The conflict left 3,000 missing people in 17 years; that is 176 missing people per year. Last year Mexican drug traffickers left some 5,000 people missing, that's 30 times more per year than the Chilean conflict. Cuba buried more bodies in a single year. Colombian conflict has left several times more missing. Peruvian conflict killed estimated 70,000. Guatemalan civil war had 150,000-200,00 missing people. The Chilean conflict, while unfortunate and had its victims, is not even close to the same magnitudes. The poorly substantiated claim is way too controversial POV to be included in the lead without the necessary comparison to other conflicts.Luis Napoles (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That’s an apples to oranges kind of comparison. Why? Because it doesn’t say conflict it says dictatorship. That’s a big difference right there.
 * Violence due to guerrillas and drug cartels is not comparable. Under those circumstances no single individual takes over the government and uses the national military to oppress political opponents.
 * And far I know, the Pinochet dictatorship has been the bloodiest of South America - if not - the bloodiest of all Latin America. And I’m pretty confident the stament is not far-fetched and easily be backed-up by a significant number of reliable sources in addition to the one already being used.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain and do each edit separately. Your habit of explaining something (usually next to nothing), and doing a dozen incomprehensible things in the same edit is nonconstructive. What comes to this, I wonder if you are implying that Guatemala, Cuba, Argentina, and others were not dictatorships. In any case, the lead should be Summary style.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You insist on that I do each edit separately. But let me ask you this; Where -anywhere- in Wikipedia does it say that we should edit that way?
 * If you do to find a policy on that, then, I will edit line by line, otherwise just deal with it.
 * Can you also explain, what's incomprehensible from my edits? Perhaps, I can help you comprehend a thing or two.
 * And no I'm not implying anything. I've been pretty straight forward.
 * Mexico's drug violence and Colombia's guerrillas make for a bad comparison to a dictatorship. Please also note, that the claim talks about one the bloodiest and not the bloodiest, another significant difference.


 * As far as I'm concerned the lead looks good. Pinochet's dictatorship and the consequences of it should be briefly mentioned in the lead.


 * Likeminas (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Other editors will keep reverting until you explain why you delete reference to economic growth, delete reference to Cuban packages, delete reference to the KGB archives, or why you restore unreferenced material in clear violation of WP:BURDEN ("could not make common cause with the oligarchs", really?). You have only explained the first sentence, leaving all other changed unexplained. Your habit can be easily interpreted as disruptive editing.


 * Again, what comes to this particular point, various estimates of deaths during one period are not WP:SS in a country article. For example, the United States article summary does start with the exact number of 911 deaths and the Argentina article summary does not mention various dictatorship in a single word. "The country has been governed by elections for most of the time, except in the 1920s and 1973-1990" is enough. We should have a vote if you still disagree.Luis Napoles (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, it’s clear to me that you have some sort of political agenda in Wikipedia. I personally don’t mind that, as long as, you can provide reliable sources. Which so far you have not. But disguising your edits as attempts to add tags while quietly deleting other material is just not improving the article.

Your last analogy is just another apples to oranges kind of comparison. First off, articles about countries are not identical, neither should they be. Secondly the 9/11 attack deaths were not a consequence of a dictatorship as they coincidentally were in 9/11 of 1973 and thereafter. The uniqueness of a 17 year dictatorship (surely much longer than Argentina’s for that matter) along with the significant loss of life, and the polarizing effects that the dictatorship had on the country makes it worthy of those two lines in the summary.

I also would like to see more people weighting in this issue. Let’s reach a consensus…

In the meantime I'll be working on adding more sources to the history section.

could not make common cause with the oligarchs, really? Really. And now it’s referenced… Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should be WP:Summary style. All details and controversial statements should be somewhere else.
 * The editor Likeminas was blocked by administrators. He has not even tried to explain why he deletes citations.Luis Napoles (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is fair to say that Chile had one of the bloodiest conflicts in Latin America as there has quite clearly been more "bloody" conflicts in Latin American in recent times for example the United States invasion of Panama. The lead should decribe it as been a violent conflict instead and let the reader decide as to how bloody it was themselves. Ijanderson (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User’s Luis Napoles political agenda
This user on the disguise of adding tags to the article is deleting sourced material, and adding a paragraph regarding the “Cuban packages” where does not seamlessly follow. 

Here’s my previous edit.

Allende's program included advancement of workers' interests; implementation of agrarian reform; reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors; a foreign policy of "international solidarity" and national independence; and a new institutional order (the "people's state" or "poder popular"), including the institution of a unicameral congress. The Popular Unity platform also called for nationalization of foreign (mainly American) ownership of Chile's major copper mines. As a result, the Richard Nixon administration organized and inserted secret operatives in Chile, in order to quickly destabilize Allende’s government. In addition, international financial pressure restricted economic credit to Chile

Here’s his:

Allende's program included advancement of workers' interests; implementation of agrarian reform; reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors; a foreign policy of "international solidarity" and national independence; and a new institutional order (the "people's state" or "poder popular"), including the institution of a unicameral congress. The Popular Unity platform also called for nationalization of foreign (mainly American) ownership of Chile's major copper mines. The Cuban packages scandal revealed arms smuggling from the Communist Cuba to Chile; Allende - surrounded by KGB advisors - had turned Chile into a center for Soviet operations in Latin America. The expectations that Chile would turn into another Cuba led to increased tensions with the United States. As a result, the Richard Nixon administration organized and inserted secret operatives in Chile, in order to quickly destabilize Allende’s government. In addition, international financial pressure restricted economic credit to Chile.

Does this make any sense???

Contributors please join the discussion. Likeminas (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this does make sense to me and I must agree with Likeminas. I believe for Likeminas to be correct in this situation over “Cuban packages”. However I believe I would be a better judge on this situation if I were able to read the Spanish references. Ijanderson (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two cause and effect theories being put foward.
 * On one hand the first edit (from above) shows that the cause for Nixon's support of Allende's overthrowing was due to the reforms Allende was implementing, involving foreing copper companies, and other American economic interests.
 * The version Luis Napoles is proposing, is that; the Nixon’s attitude toward Allende’s government was a mainly to prevent another Cuban from happening in South America.


 * Which version is more substantiated and can be more readily referenced is up to us to decide.
 * I support the former, since it’s very well documented, is more compelling and it flows seamlessly from the previous sentence.
 * Nonetheless, it would be very constructive if more people can join the discussion as consensus would be the most advisable way to reach an agreement.

Likeminas (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It should always be a question of verifiability. The following were found from the second version.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VNSMrps8mpcC&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Cold+War+espionage,+spies,+and+secret+operations.&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=XG9Z09oCfb&sig=-r-7TLSFmrgMMN80OUfsIi38RyQ&hl=en&ei=987wSd6zIdaLtgecqMWuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA377,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=4eSR1rHg5_YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+World+Was+Going+Our+Way:+The+KGB+and+the+Battle+for+the+Third+World#PPA69,M1
 * Reference #10
 * Reference #11
 * Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can find sources for both claims. But what I was referring to, is the fact that both versions link Washington's reaction to Allende's government to two difference causes.
 * The first says that it was due to the expropriation of American mining companies and other economic interests in Chile, and the second says that it was due to political maneuvering, so that to prevent Chile from falling into the soviet sphere of influence. Perhaps, both claims are correct. I just don't think the second version is well structured to present both in a neutral way.


 * Likeminas (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

There has been a lot of discusion about that since the truth is the wounds from the military government which polarized the country into the two main actual political forces have not truly healed, and leftist propaganda tend to use capitalism related institutions (virtually anything coming from the USA) to enlarge their martyr legends, such as President Salvador Allende and Argentinian activist Ernesto Guevara amongst others. That being said, you are right about pointing out that there is no hard evidence of a CIA funding/organizing the military coup, other than the already known cold war aversion of comunist regimes, which can also be asserted as of USSR helping Allende to keep the country running in the middle of the crisis he had created.

I strongly agree with the above suggestion; to ignore these newly declassified documents, and the greater role of the US, is a disservice to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.101.253 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Length
as discussed above, this article is very long, see the guidelines here Article_size. As a start perhaps the international rankings could be its own article. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * when you edit this article, the following appears: "page is 105 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size" LibStar (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Belgium a featured article is 118 kilobytes in size. Efforts to improve this article should be focused more on copy editing and the inclusion of reliable sources that are in the English language. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Compared to most articles about other countries, this particular one is not excessively long.

I’ve followed the evolution of this article for a couple of months now, and as I far as I can tell, it has not grown much in terms of written length. What I believe has increased the “weight” of the article, are the many citations that have been recently added.

I have, myself, added a quite a few these past weeks.

Without adding these much needed citations, the article would certainly weight less than the current 109kb, yet, it would be of poorer quality.

If someone is looking to start a crusade, I’d recommend him to go to the articles of the United States (158kb), Germany (123kb), Mexico (136kb), and perhaps 90% of articles about countries and add the too long tag there too.

However, that’s an extremely lengthy and quite possible a very futile task to fulfill considering other priorities such as the inclusion of reliable sources.

By the way, I do agree there's a very opnionated statement included in the economic section that we should get rid of. I'll be removing it. Likeminas (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is too long. Just because other articles have large lenghts, it does not mean that the Chile article should follow their example. The only FA article from your examples given is Germany. Why should you compare Chile to the Germany article? Germany is and throughout its history has been a major world power that has been a center of change (in terms of culture and war). What exactly has Chile done or been in order for it to have the same size as the Germany article, or more? That's not to say that Chile is not an important country, or that it does not hold a certain amount of good information that should be mentioned in the article. A more close example to Chile would be the Peru article, which is an FA. Peru's article goes straight to the point, without rambling about things that would be better suited to other articles.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look through the Chile article shows that the "International Rankings" section is highly unecessary. The "Economy" section is too long and needs summarizing. The "History" section also needs some summarizing. The "Demographics" section is extremely too long, by which I mean: Chile is not that big of a country! All of this demographics information would go perfect on the Demographics of Chile article, but on the main Chile article it only really needs to be around the same size of the one in the Peru article (Which is a country that is larger, covers more demographics, than Chile).--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is not a featured article to begin with. Not that we shouldn’t strive to improve it and achieve that status, but the comparison is not so obvious nor it serves the purpose as an analogy.
 * Let me say that I’m not arguing for what kind of influence Germany, the U.S. or Chile for that matter, has had on world history. Certainly that is, by no means, a parameter from which Wikipedia measures the length of any article. I picked those three countries randomly, just to show that most articles about countries are comparatively as long or even longer than this one.
 * As I said before, I don’t think this article has “grown” much more (with the paradoxical and recent exception of the user who added the too long tag) in terms of written material as it has in terms of added citations. Which, let’s not forget, adds weight to the kilobyte scale.


 * I personally wouldn’t call the International rankings section “highly unnecessary”. After all it contains lots of essential and relevant information about Chile, squeezed into a visual-friendly format, which may I add, is also very well referenced.
 * Nonetheless (and in an endeavor to reduce the space it takes) we could move the table and insert a brief mention of the rankings with a Wikilink to a (new) article that further elaborates on it. What do you guys think about that?
 * On the other hand, I would be careful with the Demographics and History sections, both containing very relevant information on Chile’s profile.
 * I do see some room for improvement in the economic section, however.
 * Perhaps, we could shave off the extensive mention of exporting and importing partners, free trade agreements and add a general summary in the subsection titled foreign trade.


 * In any case, it is highly advisable that we discuss any attempts to move, delete or summarize what is currently presented in the article. I’m confident that through consensus we can work something out and reduce its size.
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I callled the International Rankings section "highly unnecessary" because I haven't seen any other country article with that kind of information. As a matter of fact, it really looks to me as if it were a trivia section. The information there could easily be implemented into the article, if it really is that important. However, moving it to its separate article sounds like the best idea (considering its references). Nonetheless, I would then simply set a Wikilink of the chart on the "See Also" section.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind WP:NOTPAPER, so that valuable encyclopedic information is not removed from the article. Ijanderson (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving the international rankings section which is informative & well referenced to its own article would bring the Chile article size down to 98 kilobytes. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.
 * Likeminas (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Allende, Supreme court and unreliable source
So Luis Napoles continues with his political activism in Wikipedia. He has now added the following:

On 26 May 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court unanimously denounced the Allende régime’s disruption of the legality of the nation in its failure to uphold judicial decisions and the parliament of Chile asked the military to bring end to Allende's unconstitutional government

To backup that claim, Luis is using http://www.pensionreform.org/ a website created and promoted by Jose Piñera one of Pinochet's closest advisers and minister. Therefore, the neutrality and realibility of the source are highly compromised. Another source, and language needs to be NPOV in order for that information to be included in the article.

Likeminas (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas's unreferenced claims and other problems
"A military coup led by General Luis Altamirano in 1924 set off a period of great political instability that lasted until 1932. The longest lasting of the ten governments between those years was that of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, who briefly held power in 1925 and then again between 1927 and 1931 in what was a de facto dictatorship, although not really comparable in harshness or corruption to the type of military dictatorship that has often bedeviled the rest of Latin America and certainly not comparable to the violent and repressive regime of Augusto Pinochet decades later. By relinquishing power to a democratically elected successor, Ibáñez del Campo retained the respect of a large enough segment of the population to remain a viable politician for more than thirty years, in spite of the vague and shifting nature of his ideology. When constitutional rule was restored in 1932, a strong middle-class party, the Radicals, emerged. It became the key force in coalition governments for the next 20 years. During the period of Radical Party dominance (1932–52), the state increased its role in the economy. In 1952, voters returned Ibáñez del Campo to office for another six years. Jorge Alessandri succeeded Ibáñez del Campo in 1958, bringing Chilean conservatism back into power democratically for another term."
 * The entire paragraph is unreferenced. Likeminas added two "sources" about Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, which do not mention Carlos Ibáñez del Campo at all.
 * Given that a large proportion of "references" he inserts turn out to be like that, there is a concern that the editor is just googling random links sometimes without even reading them.Luis Napoles (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, both -Pinochet and Ibáñez del Campo- are mentioned in the boks and the sources are mainly there to back up this General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, who briefly held power in 1925 and then again between 1927 and 1931 in what was a de facto dictatorship, although not really comparable in harshness or corruption to the type of military dictatorship that has often bedeviled the rest of Latin America and certainly not comparable to the violent and repressive regime of Augusto Pinochet decades later and yes I did google them, just like most people get their sources. And so you could you, instead of selectively adding tags to information you seem to have a strong POV against.
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It easy to verify that your two "references"  do not say that. Either you made a mistake such as giving us wrong pages, or you gave us fraudulent references. In either case the way you repeatedly push original research is worrying.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources do containt revelevant informarion about Pinochet and Ibañez del Campo, I will double check these sources tonight or perhaps tomorrow to get the page numbers, and I will add another set of sources if need be. But please, refrain from making spurious and unsubstantiated accusations. 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"In 1970, Senator Salvador Allende Gossens won a plurality of votes in a three-way contest."
 * To make clear why it was so controversial election, it should be mentioned that the two leading candidates received 36.2% and 34.9%.
 * Sure you can add the numbers, but don't sneakily delete the previous sentence as you usually do. Likeminas (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Frei refused to form an alliance with Alessandri to oppose Allende, on the grounds that the Christian Democrats were a workers party and could not make common cause with the oligarchs''
 * Even if it was in the source - if the page number is correct, it is not - the way Likeminas wants to characterize 34% of Chilean voters as "oligarchs" is not encyclopedic.Luis Napoles (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please avoid bringing your own personal opinions into the subject
 * I’m not characterizing 34% of Chilean voters as anything. The phrase talks about Frei not wanting to see his party as colluding with the candidate from the right.
 * Here's another source stating pretty much the same:
 * Frei's term as president from 1964 to 1970 involved some fairly radical programs, such as the nationalization of the Kennecott and Anaconda copper mines. There was also extensive land reform. Frei was trying to gain the allegiance of the lower income groups but in the process he alienated the upper income groups and conservative elements of the electorate.
 * If you want to word it differently, while keeping intact its main point, please be my guest.
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you have claimed to us, "oligarchs" is not in your source. You repeatedly reinserted it, violating WP:OR all the way along. Luis Napoles (talk)

"Allende's program included advancement of workers' interests."
 * All candidates claimed to "advance worker's interests" so it should tell what were his policies he said would "advance worker's interests". Furthermore, Likeminas has deleted two times the request for page number. WP:V states that the source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.Luis Napoles (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure here you go, from another source:
 * Proposed the construction of socialism for the people of Chile through the further advancement of workers' interests, a thoroughgoing implementation of agrarian reform, the reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors, a foreign policy of international solidarity and national independence, and a new institutional order (the "people's state"), including the institution of a unicameral congress..
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's in the source, why do you continuously delete page number requests? A geocities.com webpage by an unknown author is not a valid source. Luis Napoles (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not geocities.com, look at the stem )http://grace.evergreen.edu/) of the URL. It's a university, and it also lists all of the sources at the end.
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"As a result, the Richard Nixon administration organized and inserted secret operatives in Chile, in order to quickly destabilize Allende’s government."
 * None of the four references say that it was "as a result", which Likeminas claims (Likeminas, you can challenge it by giving a quotation). The now-declassified Church Report of 1975, perhaps the best summary of CIA involvement, says that the reason was expectations that he would gradually impose "a Chilean version of a Soviet-style East European Communist state".Luis Napoles (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You conviniently forgot to quote from your own source that The history of United States policy toward Chile followed the patterns of United States diplomatic and economic interests in the hemisphere.
 * Allende nationalizing American-owned companies was a big (if not the biggest) incentive for U.S. intervention. There's plenty of books corroborating this. I will add some sources to the statement, if you wish.
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Church Report or any other serious history source.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of sources stating just that. In fact, I will add some tonight or tomorrow, so sit tight. Likeminas (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"On 26 May 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court, which was highly politically against Allende's government and reforms, unanimously denounced the Allende disruption of the legality of the nation. Although, illegal under the Chilean constitution, the court supported and strengthened Pinochet seizure of power."
 * Likeminas wants to characterize Supreme Court as "politically against Allende's government and reforms". This is wrong, Chilean constitution was very clear and there is no real disagreement that constitution was violated (his "reference" only says "was no friend of Allende"). If someone claims there was some controversy, it should be in the main article. "On 26 May 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court unanimously denounced the Allende disruption of the legality of the nation" should be a good summary of the events.Luis Napoles (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, claims must be at least verifiable.Luis Napoles (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the court was -No friend of Allende- which is another way of saying it was against him, but again (and there seems a pattern here), you conviniently forgot to mention that the court, and although .....ilegal under Chilean constitution......supported and strengthened Pinochet reign.
 * In any case, Nowhere in the source (AKA lobby group; www.prensionreform.org) you previously provided says anything congress asking the military to intervene.
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that this article is very long already, and prior to Luis' interventions we were trying (as it can be seen above) to reduce its length. The anoucement of the supreme court on Allende is already under Chilean coup of 1973 and it would be much better suited for the article History of Chile. Adding it here, along with the information I had to include in order to preserve a NPOV, is just not helping in keeping the size of the article down. Likeminas (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court decision was a significant event in Chilean history which explains background for the coup and it's an unambiguous fact. What you added are someone's opinions. A cleanup would start from the latter.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant according to whom?
 * You included that information on this article and not in History of Chile mainly due to your strong sense of Advocacy and not because it is such a relevant event. And if we were to allow that line to stay in then, we should also include the fact that the court disliked Allende and supported the unconstitutional take over by Pinochet.
 * Likeminas (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Credit
Likeminas added "In addition, American financial pressure restricted international economic credit to Chile". That is is true, but it had little impact.

A Time Magazine article:
 * In fact, the credit was tightened by commercial banks, which regard Chile as a poor credit risk. Many of Chile's woes, however, are traceable to the government's freewheeling spending to provide across-the-board salary increases and promote "public works" schemes that have eaten up more than $300 million in currency reserves in the 21 months since Allende came to power. To keep pace with inflation the government has cranked out more and more escudos. ... Chile's economic stagnation has been caused mainly by overzealous nationalization. Thus far about 250 firms have been taken over; many were "intervened" (as Chilean official jargon puts it) in the wake of often phony labor disputes or charges that production is faltering. ... Hundreds of foreign technicians have left the country, contributing to a sharp drop in productivity.

Luis Napoles (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Surprise!
 * Another false accusation by Luis.
 * No. I did not add that line. It was in the article way before I started editing.
 * I perhaps restored it due to your POV-loaded edits (for which you have now been blocked)
 * In any case, that historical fact is not hard to reference and I will provide more source to back it up.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Also, the translation to "Por la razón o la fuerza" is "By reason or might" not "By right or might". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.96.57.68 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

=
============

What's with the not editing? It needs a lot of work. The sentence: "Who migrated to Chile in the 18th century vitalized the economy" should be fixed to something like "Those who migrated to Chile in the 18th century revitalized the economy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliversisson (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Population
where is the citation for the Population number used in the infobox, the CIA fact book has another number see here, either we provide a citation or we change to that number

M aen K. A. Talk  08:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I Agree, the translation 'by right or might' is deficient, I am changing it to 'By Reason or Force'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.250.91 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the translation of the motto and provided reliable support for that rendering. I don't understand why someone keeps reverting that improvement, specially if the source i gave for it comes from the official Chilean Government INTL website.

Apparently I am in the middle of a edit-war between two other users. I only ask for respect for each other as wiki-editors.

I'll correct the translation again. I hope it lasts this time.

Greetings!!--Universal001 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How long do we have to endure this war of editions??? Give us a break, guys!! Cielestrellado and leccionesdelavida, stop editing after editing. Discuss here at the discussion area, before editing!!! This is a warning. If you continue like this we are gonna have to ask this article to be protected (locked)!

I have given a better translation of the Chilean motto, a professional one, and provided support for my statement. Please, leave it like that unless you have a source better than that and a translation better than that--Universal001 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The name is Selecciones de la Vida copy and paste it if you're having trouble. I have not reverted your edits, on the contrary, I am reverting CieloEstrellado's edits and bringing the article back to the status quo, back to the one that has already been widely discussed by several users. If you were to take the time to check the history log and see what has been happening you would realize that. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Selecciones de la Vida, I am taking your advice and just copied and pasted your username. Now, I don't wanna fight with either of you guys. It's just that this constant change after change of the article makes no sense. Perhaps I should have checked its history before writing what I wrote on this comment, and it's very possible that you are right about why you do the reverts you do. I thought I saw you reverting my last edition, but I could be wrong, and I don't want to make a big deal of that. Sorry if I misjudged you. Only, let's do something to stop this revert after revert. Let's discuss that situation before any other edition of the sort takes place.Universal001 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again (well, we'll have to be patient), I have corrected the motto according to reliable sources and the opinion of others (see above).--Universal001 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)