Talk:Chile/Archive 4

STOP WAR OF EDITIONS NOW!
It's such a shame to see this article changing everyday for no good reason!. Improvements made by wiki-users who are not engaged in the war of editions are lost in the the middle of this crossed fire. Please stop it at once, unless you want an intervention on the form of a protection of the article. SeleccionesdelaVida and Cieloestrellado, please discuss your editions in this area before editing again. All other users and editors of this page will be thankful if you do. Greetings!! --Universal001 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, Cieloestrellado, stop reverting before discussing!!!!!!!!--Universal001 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am only reverting the undiscussed overhaul of the article done by CieloEstrellado, thus preventing the removal of sourced content and previously discussed edits. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's reach consensus
Population of Chile here is wrong about the porcent of white is more of that is about 75% White and the rst are native and mestizos please repeair this concept Tks very much The article states in the frst paragraph:


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

Some one has already indicated here this sentence is wrong and should be rephrased as follows:


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

Recently I replaced it with this other one:


 * It is one of the only two countries in South America having no border with Brazil.

but User:Selecciones de la Vida has reverted that change arguing the first sentence is not grammatically wrong.

Since I do not want to start a war of editions, a desire some editors of this article would do well to develope, I open this section to discussion, so as to reach a consensus about what sentence is '1. Gramatically right and 2. Best for the transmission of the message'

Waiting for others' opinions, --Universal001 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for opinions on this subject. If no one opposes, I'm gonna use the sentence "It is one of the only two countries in South America having no border with Brazil". I'm waiting for your opinions on the subject, silence will be considered approval of this last sentence. Greetings!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal001 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since apparently no one opposes to the propposed sentence, I'm going to use it--Universal001 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I support your change.--//&#91;*&#93;MarshalN20&#91;*&#93;\\ (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation to refine the Chile article has to do with the History section pertaining to the 1973 coup of the Allende government.

While the article points to relevant and important facets of this important milestone in Chilean history, the well-known involvement of the United States is left out. While other Wikis reference the intervention of the U.S. government, specifically, the C.I.A., the article proceeds to paint to paint the change of government as a strictly internal affair. To a lay person researching Chile, this would be a blatant error, for example, to omit this data.

Several cases of interventionism by United States in the Cold War era were crafted not only as reactions to the empowerment of leftist governments with respect to the containment policy it had adopted - but were also for the protection of big businesses under threat of nationalization.

In 1970, ITT, the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, under Harold Geneen, owned approximately 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company. ITT, in the 1960s had been large financiers of the Eduardo Frei campaigns due to his political conservatism and business-friendly economic orientation. In context of Cold War, they had already had interests nationalized in Cuba under Fidel Castro's Cuban Revolution and affirmed the United States anti-communist sentiments abroad.

Likewise, during the 1970 campaign, they actively petitioned the C.I.A. to subvert the campaign of Salvador Allende and his election culminated in an offer by Geneen to pay seven figures to manufacture economic chaos to destabilize his incoming government. Despite these efforts, the Allende government proceeded with its plans to begin the nationalizion of Chilean infrastructures including ITT's holdings. Geneen, in April of 1971 attempted to negotiate compensation for Allende's directives. By September, an interventor had been appointed and ITT proceeded with its plans to regain its lost assets. ITT executive William Merriam crafted an 18-point plan to undermine the success of Allende's socialist policies through economic sabotage and forwarded it to the White House. "In the spring of 1972 various ITT memoranda, providing conclusive evidence of the conspiracy, were published by Jack Anderson in his syndicated column."

Although many documents remain classified on Project FUBELT (Track II) as to the direct involvement of the United States in the coup itself, Henry Kissinger allegedly told Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it," but "we helped them...created the conditions as great as possible."

--Christopherwalker (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Stray dogs
Perhaps the article should mention the extremely large stray dog population in Chile. It's probably one of Chile's most defining cultural properties for better or worse. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference(s) dealing with stray dogs in Chile as a cultural aspect would be needed. An informative article that deals with Stray dogs in Chile could be created. The Costanera hero dog and Garrincha's dog that he adopted from the 1962 World Cup after it walked onto the field during a game should be included. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

fragments
There is a fragment in the German section of immigration that not only contains no information, but also doesn't make sense. Please remove it. Cmiych (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further info- "These Germans (which included German-speaking Swiss, Silesians, Alsatians and Austrians), markedly influenced the cultural composition of the southern of Chile. During the second half of the 19th century was exceptional. Small numbers of displaced eastern European Jews and Christian Syrians and Palestinians fleeing the Ottoman Empire arrived in Chile."


 * I advocate simply removing " was exceptional. S" and replacing it with ", s" Cmiych (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Sponsored by the Chilean government with aims of colonising the southern region." doesn't make sense on its own. Should it be merged with the following sentence i.e. ".... southern region, these Germans ...." or does that not make sense and/or misrepresent what happened. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Next- "Greeks have also immigrated to Chile and have formed a notable ethnic identity[102] .Greeks Estimated to be descendants from 90,000 to 120,000[103] Most of them live either in the Santiago area or in the Antofagasta area. Chile is one of the 5 countries with more descendants of Greeks in the world.[104]"


 * change to- ""Greeks have also immigrated to Chile and have formed a notable ethnic identity[102]. An estimated 90,000 to 120,000 Greek descendants currently reside in Chile[103]. Most of them live either in the Santiago area or in the Antofagasta area." Cmiych (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Next- "European immigration, and to a lesser degree in the Middle East, produced during the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (large "waves" in America), after corresponding to the Atlantic coasts of the Southern Cone ( that is, Argentina, Uruguay and South Brazil), was the most significant Latin America is favored mainly by the intense traffic that is produced through extreme south of the country until the opening of the Panama Canal in 1920, although other numbers came from Argentina, across the Cordillera."
 * I don't even know where to start with this one... any suggestions? Cmiych (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Last one for now... "Currently, immigration from neighboring countries to Chile is greatest.[105][106]"


 * Change to "Currently, the majority of immigration into Chile comes from neighboring countries.[105][106]" Cmiych (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Shell  babelfish 23:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Anybody have any suggestions on the "European immigration, and to a lesser degree..." part?  Cmiych (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

revert
You removed large portions of cited information, including essentially blanking/removing a section. Given this, I believe the revert is warranted. If you notice, I did include many of your changes in the revert regardless. Cmiych (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilkock reverts all of my work
Unexplained. I've asked over at the German WP for an explanation. Please hold off further changes until this is sorted out. Tony  (talk)  16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was Kilcock, who still hasn't responded. Tony   (talk)  01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilkock
Why do you keep changing the sourced information about the demographics of Chile? Will wait 24hrs for a response before reverting... Cmiych (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it, when you revert, if you could reinstate my edit too. Tony   (talk)  01:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider Easter Island
Looking at the France article, I see there's a secondary map showing French Guyana. I say there should be a similar map in the Chile article showing Easter Island, especially considering how far it is from the American continent (or any continent whatsoever). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.70.232 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kilcock's last edits
Kilcock's edits have been consistently reverted here as the information is unsourced and the individual does not respond to requests for discussion. Please revert his last edit. Cmiych (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article currently conflicts itself. It says there are 30% white and then later it says 56.7% white. I think a consensus needs to be reached as to which study is going to be accepted. – túrian  patois  14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only English source for the 52.7% doesn't even state that fact. Unfortunately I can't read the other sources. This has been going on for months and Kilkock has refused discussion and possibly strewn obscenities across my talk page from an anonymous IP.  Cmiych (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the edit request because it is only semi-protected and you already edited it. Here is one source: La población     chilena tiene una estructura étnica conformada por un 30% de blancos      o caucásicos; 5% de aborígenes mongoloides y 65% de mestizos      predominantemente blancos. This cites what is currently in the infobox. But the other source does state the 53.7% that keeps popping up (the book Iberoamérica). So I say find recent sources for the demographics otherwise, legitimate cases can be made for both sides. – túrian  patois  15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed in info in the infobox to be more broad and elaborated on the differences between studies in the Demographics section. Any further suggestions Cmiych (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to go is to just include both, therefore informing the reader of the disagreement/conflict. – túrian  patois  15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All sources and studies should be presented. The numbers for the demographics of Chile vary depending on the reference. From Demographics of Chile: The Chilean population is approximately 30% white, with mestizos of predominantly white (castizos) ancestry further estimated at 65%. Another recent study estimates that the white population corresponds to 52.7% of Chileans. The White and Mestizo figures appear combined in some sources, so that Chile's population is classified as 95.4% whites and mestizos by the CIA and other.

According to the Census 2002, 4.6% of the Chilean population was Indian, although most show varying degrees of miscegenation. . Likeminas (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Demographics of Chile is where I pulled the updated demographics information from, I simply used the combined figure for the infobox section. Feel free to do as you will with it, but I'm just trying to put an  end to the warring. Cmiych (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the incorrect source was used. The 95% (combining white and mestizo populations) is from the CIA. The current source is from the University of Chile which says the population is 30% white, 5% native american, and 65% mestizo.
 * I will add CIA source (if no one opposes, of course) and remove the category castizo as the combined figure is meant for mestizo. Likeminas (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the fauna?
What animals are found in Chile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.194.26 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 September 2009
 * I've added a subsection on flora and fauna. The page is currently pretty long and some summarizing might be needed, but I felt this information was necessary as well. Please discuss if this is can be further improved. Likeminas (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Chile's official website
I had added as an external link the new official Chile website. It is a very important summary of information available for everybody in the world. But someone has erased the link...this is simply vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna2007 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Communication lines
I have a reletive in chile and they say that wherever they are, there is no telephone/network connection so they cannot communicate with us. Is this true? that Chile can lack network to communicate with other countries like Africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.111.253 (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I Am from Chile and there is network pretty much everywhere. even up in the mountains but not in between the northern valleys. maybe their phone is set up wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.103.65 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A question Re: Chile/The US State California.
Heard in Eons past Chile /The US State of Caliofornia may have had some "connection'? The Condor found in Chile and the California Condor being a possible link? Any truth to this? Thank You Gracias(Dtaed AfternoonTues.Oct6th200921stCent.Dr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD.D.ULC>)Edsonbrasil (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity figures
Readers,

I sometimes go back to this very well-written and elegantly illustrated article to find that ethnicity figures (key data on any country page) are either not consistent (two very different sources are given for the relevant infobox bracket and the ethnicity section), or, falling back on the CIA Factbook's ambiguous "95% white and mestizo/castizo" number. That would be a little like saying that the US population is 95% black and white, or the Afghan population 95% Pashtun and Tadjik.

If memory serves, there was a source for 52% of Chile's people as white, and another one that put it at 60%, and if so, great - but please try to use these more detailed references instead of a 95%-this-and-that figure, since the detailed breakdown is in fact available.

Just an idea. Best of Luck. Nononsenseplease (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BIG ERROR
It has come to my attention that a source being used in all article dealing with Chile's racial composition is being misquoted or misunderstood. The source is this one:

The problems are these:
 * The source is being misrepresented as a a genetic study. It is not a genetic work! Nowhere in the source does it claim itself as presenting genetics figures.
 * The source is being used to present a white (by genetics) majority population in Chile (of up to 90%, gee wiz).
 * The source CLEARLY states that the categories it is presenting ARE NOT racial! The sources STATES they are using socio-racial definition of race in their "race" categories. That means that they are including as "European" those people who are culturally European (culturalmente "Criollo"; as the source says in Spanish, which traditionally means a white person born on the American continent). Because of these parameters the source it is using, it is including as white those mestizos whose cultural patterns are "criollo" (European). Thats why the source tallies a disproportionate number of Chileans as white. The source makes that very clear. It specifically states that most of Chile is classed as white, because it deemes the mestizos in Chile to be by and large culturally "European" as well. The title of the source says it too "Composición ETNICA [ethnic means identity, not biology] de las Tres Áreas CULTURALES [again, they are stressing the nature of the work by sayin "three cultural areas" of the American continent"] del Continente Americano"

The source is useful to tell us about the culture of Chile, NOT about the racial composition. I hope I can get some other users to read the source and back me up before I go and make changes, which I anticipate will be quickly reverted by some people. It has been mentioned ad nauseum, that all available true genetic studies show the entire population of Chile (whether Amerindians, mestizos, or whites; except for a tiny minority among white who have yet to mix with Chilean-born Chilean whites/mestizos/Amerindians) has some degree of admixture. The average admixture rate of Chilean mestizaje (which is given by genetic studies) is 60% European to 40% Amerindian. (Much lower than 40% Amerindian component among those who identify as "white", and higher than 40% Amerindian component in those who identify as "Amerindians". Yes, Mapuches are actually mestizos too, only slightly more Amerindian that the non-Amerindian-identified mestizos in Chile, and perhaps still under 50% Amerindian. It is the middle classes that are neither "white" identified nor "Amerindian" identified that are closest to the 60/40 average.)

What we have in Chile is a population with
 * a large minority of "white" people (those with a very high component of European ancestry and very low component of Amerindian ancestry)
 * a majority who are "mestizos" (on average slightly greater in European ancestry and slightly lower in Amerindian ancestry, and who are culturally "white". there is only indigenous and non-indigenous culture in Chile. there is no "mestizo" identity in Chile. both mestizos and whites are part of the same culture)
 * a small minority of "Amerindians" (who are on average slightly greater on Amerindian composition than the non-Amerindian identified mestizos, and perhaps slightly higher in European composition anyway or around 50/50, but are culturally "Amerindian".)

The reason why we keep having so many problems in the Chile pages on Wikipedia is because there is NO DISTINCT separation between "mestizo", "white" and "Amerindian" cultures in Chile. Unlike places like Mexico, where the white segment has their own cultural patterns, and the Amerindian segment has their own cultural patterns, and the mestizos have cultural patterns separate from both those of the white segment and the Amerindian segment. In Chile, there is only a "non-indigenous" culture (shared by the white segment and the mestizo segment) and an "indigenous" culture (espoused by a segment which is also genetically mestizo, but who are Amerindian-identified).

One last thing. There is one source which is also being used to say 25% Amerindian and 75% European is the Chilean average mestizaje. that study is a blood group study! it says it researched blood types and attributed A and B blood types as being European and O type as being Amerindian. given the distribution differences in the strata of Chilean society, it estimated a 75% European input because of distribution pattern of foreign (European) blood types in Chileans. this, however, is not a genetic study. and it says only the distribution of blood types. the study is flawed in that it assigns O type blood as the Amerindian identifier, but it is NOT exclusive to Amerindians, and it is also present in others, including Europeans. Al-Andalus (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Colonial mentality and whitening ideology –mainly due to socio-economic issues- are pretty damn strong in Chile.

I find it rather sad that the paper from the University of Chile which puts whites at 30% and Mestizos at 65% was completely removed from both; this article and Demographics of Chile

I will re-insert this information as omitting it violates Wikipedia’s NPOV requirement. Likeminas (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

All studies presented at the demographics of Chile, geneticists and historians are recognized worldwide as Francisco Lizcano, Claudio Esteva-Fabregat, E. García Zarza, R Cruz-Coke and others, we must make clear that none of them is Chilean.

The second point to discuss is the obsecion of Likeminas to put as the main study by students at the University of Chile (arguing that the more real) according to their views clear, yet at the same time, rejects the source of Medical Genetics Unit, Hospital JJ Aguirre, Universidad de Chile, Santiago. Resulting from Chile's population is approximately 64% white.

By clarifying these points, I intend to cite all references discussed with their corresponding estimates.Kusamanic (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chile does not have a census about racial groups. All these racial studies are based on personal opinions and imaginary figures. It's not a surprise that due to whiten ideologies the percentage of Whites may be enflate. The only reliable source about race in Chile are the genetic studies, and none of them found a White majority in Chile. All of them found a Mestizo population with varying degrees of European and Amerindian ancestry. Due to the lack of racial census, and the several sources which claim several different percentage for each ethnic group, I think we must use only the genetic studies, and exclude the ambiguous racial studies. And it's funny how the sources that claim Whites are minority often "disappear" from the articles abouty Chile, while the sources that claim Whites are majority are posted everywhere. It seems "somebody" is trying to sell its Whiten ideology everywhere. What a shame. Opinoso (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kusamanic I don’t discard the other study nor I'm obsessed with this one I just think we should post all reliable sources that touch the subject. If there are sources that say there's a white majority, then, that's fine. But that's no excuse to obscure sources that claim a mestizo majority.
 * WP:NPOV requires we post all sources, especially when scholarly conducted studies seem discrepant with one another. Likeminas (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What is very shameful is its obsession with ethnic issues in Chile also informed that most genetic studies are shown , so that if for any Latin America analyze genotype were mixed. If you have questions about anthropologists and geneticists who did the studies, I recommend you read and inform more about the subject. To end the only one who polarizes opinions and personal reflections on the Chilean population are you, as shown here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Latin_American/Archive_3#Statistical_of_Chile_and_Mexico.2C_false ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→.]This not only happens to the articles Chile it also has more than enough with other what has cost him multiple blockades for not respecting sources.--Kusamanic (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Hi, The coat of arms presented in the article seems to be drawn by a little kid. I do not know how to add a photo here. Here is the official coat: http://www.chilesomostodos.gov.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=11 It is the third one. Best, Harold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.132.168 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MOTTO TRANSLATION
Once again, I have restored the right translation of the National Motto. This one has been already discussed in the past and an agreement was achieved (See archive, under Motto Translation). Please do not undo this change unless a better translation, and a more reliable source is provided, though I wonder if you can find a more authoritative opinion than that of the official website run by the Chilean Government, the one I quote as the reference for this rendering.--Universal001 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkeys
Apparently there are 28000000 turkeys in Chile (according to the sporcle game http://www.sporcle.com/games/world_turkey_pop.php). This means that there are 1.68 turkeys per head of population in Chile!!!! Should this be mentioned somewhere in the Chile article????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.102 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy
The economy section is out of date - can someone look at updating it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtruapehu (talk • contribs) 01:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chiles economic turnaround from 1973 is famous (Chigaco Boys), but this is not even mentioned. Chiles legacy will forever be the start of what is now mainstream in the Wordl; funding of pension. It all startet with the Chigago Boys in Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.135.107 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! The economy part of Chile is painfully out of date! Can anyone help? If I had the time I would but I'm authoring other political projects atm. Someone please help. Thanks! :) --Neon Sky (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction required
Notwithstanding the many evident controversies in which this aricle is embroiled, out of the fire and hammers has come a well crafted text. Well done all! A small niggle, but a irritating for all that: "The Pacific coastline of Chile is 6,435 kilometres" would better be "The length of Chile's Pacific coastline has been estimated as 6,435 km". Drawbridge (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Another correction is also necessary" "In the mid-1960s native musical forms were revitalized by the Parra family with the Nueva Canción Chilena, which was associated with political activists and reformers such as Victor Jara,in this period also appeared other important groups like Inti-Illimani." This isn't a sentence and there needs to be a space between "Jara," and "in." Also the sentence can be phrased differently, so it's less awkward. 67.85.208.10 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile gains entry into OECD
It is now a member. Needs to be updated in main page http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/201011123388497507.html Micro360 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile is not a OCDE member yet. Only the "camara de diputados" has approved the OCDE membership (2010.01.20 http://www.radiobiobio.cl/2010/01/20/diputados-aprueban-ingreso-de-chile-a-la-ocde/). The "Senado de la Republica" should approve such membership also, however it will be discussed only after return from legislative vacations in end of February 2010. Anyway, as final step this agreement should be published in the "Diario Oficial" not before March. Sincerely, J. P. Wiff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpwiff (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica
Why does the map of Chile's location show the Antarctic claim - it shouldn't do so. 81.136.146.10 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Chadrick is from the Antarctic Claim is unilateral and unrecognized, and precluded by international law.  Please remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.151.55 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Antarctic claims are not part of the territory. Joevicentini (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The IP summarized my feelings perfectly. There is also a dangerous precedent with this and Argentina since many countries have claims (not only in Antarctica) which are disputed. It is inappropriate to give the claim the weight it receives in the Infobox. This is compounded by so little of the article touching on the claim.
 * The image currently used is in a style seen in infoboxes (commons:Grey-green orthographic projections maps). I'm fearful of replacing it with something like commons:File:LocationChile.svg and think it might be appropriate to edit the current image. Does anyone know how to do this?Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Enough time has past that I am doing it. Any concerns feel free to revert, discuss it here, make a new map.Cptnono (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The map distinguishes recognized Chilean territory with the Antarctic claim in a different shade of green which does not allow confusion between the two. It's also followed by a wikilink that goes more in depth on the subject. This is similar to the map found in People's Republic of China article with Taiwan. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you doing? Four people have provided their views with some good reasoning. You pointed to China. The "ongoing discussion" you referred to in your edit summary does not support your edit.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The People's Republic of China orthographic map is relevant to this discussion. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Four others still disagree with you. Also, the People's Republic of China is a different article with a different set of legal variables that may or may not be OK.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but four other editors have not disagreed with me on the point made that the People's Republic of China orthographic map is relevant as an example. The orthographic map of Chile with a specific note on im in the primary articles.Cptnono (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should list the differences between the Chilean map and the Chinese one. As for the issue of weight, the introduction to the Chile article makes mention of the claim. On top of this the map features a description supported by a wikilink that can be accessed to provide even more information. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Argentina features the orthographic map with the Antarctica claim and Chile should not be the exception. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you doing changing it back. Everyone else has disagreed with you. You have also cherry picked Argentina. How about you fix that article instead of breaking this one? Not going to edit war with you so I am tagging the article. The next best step might be to open an RFC on the issue. Cptnono (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile with 20 % of extreme poor ???
??????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.118.106 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And that false information was removed --NewAntarcticwik (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes by Ccrazymann
I've reverted these for now as the English quality was better before and links like the one to Demographics of Chile shouldn't have been changed to White People. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, the change spellings from American English to British English, when an article is already established in a particular spelling style. (WP:ENGVAR).
 * I'm British and I thought it was generally just not as clear English as it was before. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He returned to the origin information, regarding German immigration in Chile, because it is not a small immigration, which only produced a cultural impact on Chilean society, the German colonists founded cities (Puerto Montt, Puerto Varas, Frutillar, Puerto Octay, Villarrica, Pucon, etc), to highlight to the day by day in all areas including politics, sports, culture, among others and, in numerical terms, was a mass migration, colonized much of southern. Only in the period of settlement arrived between 30,000 to 40,000 Germans, not counting those who settled in other parts of Chile, or those who arrived after this period, which is a higher immigration.
 * OK fair enough, certainly change that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for now, restore them to regard the German immigration. Ccrazymann (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, I'm leaving the re-additions for the Austrian and Dutch up to you :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It also incorporates a pair of small immigrations, but perceptible in Chilean society, as the settlements coming from Austria and the Netherlands (who founded several towns in southern Chile as Gorbea, Faja Maisan, Pitrufquén, Victoria, among others.) Ccrazymann (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this up to your (and others judgement) as I'm not an expert on this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, The information has been restored, good job;) Ccrazymann (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes User:Al-Andalus
Your changes no correspond to describe the Demographics of Chile or Chile as a nation, not even for ethnography (Greek ethnos-εθνος, "tribe, people" - and graph-γραφω, "I write" - literally "description of people") is a research method of social and cultural anthropology that facilitates the study and understanding of a particular socio-cultural field, normally a human community with its own identity. It is based on interviews and observation (participant observation is the most important), with the field work a basic tool in the research process. "It has to do with the study of culture or cultures of a population, not its composition "racial" or phenotypes and genotypes. That should be encompassed under bioarchaeology or physical anthropology or "study population", but in no case in an article of population or demography. Therefore, I ask that you refrain from changes and opinions as this 1):The only reliable sources regarding the ancestral origins of Chile's population are genetic studies, and all of these, thus far, indicate various majority figures for Chileans of admixed origin, in varying degrees of European and Amerindian admixture. 2): controversy: 35% Amerindian with traces [around 1%] of other admixture." the top 1%?, You are manipulating sources. Ccrazymann (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All over wikipedia, every page that touches on Chile's ancestral and ethnic composition, time and time again, all that can be found is a littany of edits which someone has done to present Chile as 1) a white majority country, 2) where European immigration was a large scale event, and 3) in some articles, written in a way that either suggests, or outright claims, that descendants of Euopean immigration outnumbered not only white Chileans of Spanish ancestry, but that they also outnumber racially mixed Chileans of Spanish/Amerindian ancestry. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE!!!


 * What is more pathetic, is that it has been allowed to happen all over wikipedia. And that it has been happened for so long. No one has even bothered to check those sources that are being used to back up the alleged white "majority". I, however, did bother myself, and I read them last week. And guess what?! None of them say anything of a white majority in Chile. A few of them do state a "majority" percentage for white ANCESTRY among Chileans, but IN NO WAY do they state a white "majority" as a Chilean population group.


 * In the last week I have become sick and tired of this constant obsession on the Chilean pages of presenting a white majority in Chile. Are there no users with a sense of decency to check the bloody sources that are being used to justify content in this article that says that Chile has a white majority? For heaven's sake!!!


 * As I state in my edit summaries, I am going to say this one last time, the genetic study in the source that is from the University of Chile DOES NOT say 64% of Chileans are White! IT MAKES A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE when you purposefully misquote the source and suggest that it says 64% of Chileans are white, when in fact, what the source ACTUALLY SAYS, is that the general population of Chile is of racially mixed origin (aka mestizo), and that on average this mixture (aka mestizaje) is more European in contribution, at around 64% white and 35% amerindian (ie, less than 1% other). THATS A BLOODY BIG DIFFERENCE!


 * SOMEONE PLEASE TAKE THE BLOODY TIME TO READ THE SOURCE. Prevent these vandals from reverting to the version fradulently misrepresenting the source. The source in question SAYS that Chileans are mixed, and that on average that mixture is 64% White. I have included direct quotes from the source, yet the user User talk:Ccrazymann keeps deleting the direct quotes, and reinstating the version, in many Chile related pages, to the one which alleges the sources says 64% of Chileans are white. What a crock of sh*t.


 * Now, that user, gives some bullsh*t argument that the demographics section is not about ethnography or race, and that it should not contain such data. I agree, it is not only about ancestry and ethnicity, but demographics does incorporate many variables of a population, including socio-economic structure, geographic distribution, education levels, and yes, ancestral (what some call race) and ethnic structure. So, may I suggest that when a user reverts the page the next time, if his argument is that demographics should not incorporate racial and ethnic composition of the population, then in that case, may he delete the data altogether, instead of merely reverting it to a version where the ethnographic data and race data is still there, but in a form which misrepresents the sources, so as to say there is a white majority in Chile. This is simply malicious.


 * Why are we putting up with this cr*p? Someone step in already! Where are the Administrators????? It not just the user User talk:Ccrazymann, but now also a the newly registered user User:NewAntarcticwik, and several IP's.


 * And for the last freaken time, in regards to Lizcano's work, he is a SOCIOLOGIST! His figures have nothing to do with genetic findings. This has to be MADE CLEAR if we are going to use him as an authority. He can only be used in his capacity as a sociologist, and he himself says his categories are "ethnic", that is, cultural. His work itself says it is an "ethnic" composition, not racial, of the Three Culltural Areas of the American Continet! Stop this farce already.


 * I am going to insert into this article the version of ancestral and ethnic structure of Chile which is corrected to represent what the sources actually say, with a few direct quotes.


 * And "no", no one is comparing Chile to other countries where mestizos also form the largest population group. No one is denying Chile has a larger European heritage, than say, Mexico (proportionally), and especially moreso than Peru. But the average Chilean is nevertheless of mestizo origin, even when his average mestizaje is 64% white and 35% Amerindian (less than 1% other). The average Mexican is of mestizo origin too, and he is on average, around 40% white and 60% Amerindian. Chile is Chile. Mexico is Mexico. No one is comparing Chile to Mexico. Peru is even more different to Chile, and different from Mexico also, given that the average person in Peru is Amerindian (they are a plurality, not a majority), but even if we take people of mestizo origin to be the majority in Peru, the average input would be more like %80 Amerindian and 20% European.


 * As a DNA study last year showed, conquistadors slaughtered Latin America's men and took their women. DNA was taken from "unrelated people from 13 populations of Mestizoes - people from a mixed European/native American origin - in seven countries from Chile in the south to Mexico in the north." "The biggest native American element found in DNA today was found to be in areas which had denser populations before the Spanish conquistadors and other colonists arrived in the late 15th Century." "These include regions of the Andes mountain range and cities such as Mexico City". Al-Andalus (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a 40 year old Chilean I don't understand how is that two foreigners try to tell the world about our ethnicity, culture, politics, or anything at all about us. Each Chilean knows who he is, and believe me when I tell you that at the end of the day each one of us is PROUD of being a CHILENO. We have been measured and judged by every nation in the world for any reason in the book, for the US we are a third world country pack with little ignorant indian mexican looking type maybe, because they don't know what is below Mexico and why should they care anyway the US is the greatest nation in the world a nation so powerful that until today still trying to rebuilt New Orleans, and we are just a tiny nation backing up the money that the US have been borrowing from China. Anyway I used to have this French girlfriend, to be honest she was my mistress she was awesome, anyway, I was so shock when she returned from a trip to France and show me a present she got from her parents it was a nice French book about our Mestizo origens. Why is that every body concerns about something that is just our to care of. Yes, we are a mix, a mix of Mapuches, Spanish, French, Germans, Italians, Onas, Pascuenses, Arabs, even Jews and we are liars, thieves, Comunist, Nazis, Green, Red, but above all CHILENOS. The US exported racism all around the world like a plage just to satisfy their own feelings of racial inferiority created by their knowledge of being the descendants of the most unclean racial society in the world, you can see until today how some people in the US claims racial purity. Winston churchill had jew on him, was he pure white?. If we decide to proclaim ourselves white or Mapuche that is up to us, the jews proclaim themselves the chosen ones, and they themselves wrote a book that makes their claim valid, and even when I love GOD with all my heart I refuse to believe that GOD make mistakes. So, all I know is that even if I was Black but I was born in Chile I would be proud of being a Chileno because history has shown that nothing would ever separate us not even My General Pinochet, ni los traidores que nos venden a las Racial Pure superpowers, Lautaro was PURE, so was Caupolican, Fresia, Almagro, Valdivia, Schilling, Sonnenberg, Gonzales, Tapia, Pinochet, Toundreau, and even when I don't like the idea, Frei, is pure Chilean and if there is a COMPATRIOTA que tiene complejo racial me da pena que se sienta asi porque ser Chileno es un privilegio y un HONOR, en EEUU la nacionalidad se compra pero el ser Chileno, se es o se es no, lo unico malo de nuestra historia es lo mismo que en EEUU, los lideres politicos han usado el poder que se les da para satisfacer sus propias ambiciones robandole al pueblo. So, please stop trying to tell me and the whole world about our racial ethnicity, history or culture, if not I would feel free to create a page Claiming the term CHILENO as a unique race. --Kettenhunde (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

article 1st paragraph
Its already been fixed :). And the user in question has been banned as they'd vandalised other pages too. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS thanks anyway for the report :). See WP:Vandalism for future reference. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote this article?
Hi, with all due respect I would like to know who wrote this article. I would like to change some of the views on it...

--Kettenhunde (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ketten, the article is a result of many editors editing the article over a long period of time; there is no sole editor. You are free to edit the article, too, so go right ahead; however, if you are changing the "view" of the article, make sure that it is a change which helps establish a neutral point of view; the article should not contain any bias or opinions and always be backed up with sources. Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased and/or unsupported claims re: Allende
As the article is protected I was unable to make a direct edit so I'll just point this out here.

In the 20th century section, several paragraphs in, the claim is made that:

"An economic depression that began in 1967 peaked in 1970, exacerbated by capital flight, plummeting private investment, and withdrawal of bank deposits in response to Allende's socialist program. Production fell and unemployment rose. Allende adopted measures including price freezes, wage increases, and tax reforms, to increase consumer spending and redistribute income downward."

The citation given for this does not seem to mention any of this. I read the link's Google books preview for at least 10 pages before concluding that whoever editing this sentence gave a random citation to falsely support his or her claims. (Or, they may have just linked to the wrong section.)

At least, a "citation needed" should be added to these dubious claims, as well as perhaps a tag warning of possible NPOV violations, as these claims clearly seek to discredit Allende.

Allende was not in power until 1970, yet the sentence blames the 1967-70 depression on his policies. Reading the citation given, and reviewing what I know about the era, these claims are totally bogus. Removing at least the last part of the first sentence reading " in response to Allende's socialist program," as well as inserting the phrase "In response," to the beginning of the second sentence may alleviate the error. Yet the citation should still be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.203.195 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The mentioned paragraph does not blame the economic depression on Allende, from what I understand. The paragraph that precedes it clearly states at the beginning that Allende came to power in 1970. This paragraph only seems to claim that there was an economic depression that began in 1967 (which needs to be sourced), and regarding to Allende it claims that his government's economic policies made said economic depression to peak in 1970 (which also needs to be backed up with factual data that both proves the depression peaked in 1970 and establishes a causality with Allende's policies), but it doesn't say that Allende caused the depression at all. The sentence "Production fell and unemployment rose." seems somewhat superfluous, in my opinion, given that it's already implicit when referring to the economic depression as such; even then, if it were to stay, it should be properly sourced as well. I am not sure if the source given for that paragraph if valid, though, as it provides me no preview and cannot access it in any other way for now.


 * As for the other sentence, "Allende adopted measures including price freezes, wage increases, and tax reforms, to increase consumer spending and redistribute income downward.", it simply seems to be describing some of Allende's government economic policies, as the rest of the paragraph goes: "(...) Joint public-private public works projects helped reduce unemployment. Much of the banking sector was nationalized. Many enterprises within the copper, coal, iron, nitrate, and steel industries were expropriated, nationalized, or subjected to state intervention. Industrial output increased sharply and unemployment fell during the Allende administration's first year." I do not see how does this discredit Allende at all, as it merely describes some of his policies, and even mentions his policies reduced unemployment and increased industrial output - which I don't see how could it be a 'bad' thing intended to discredit him.


 * It might be necessary to check the sources and add [citation needed] where required, but I do not see any NPOV violation there. 190.161.104.124 (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also. the introduction paragraph contradicts itself: "Although relatively free of the coups and arbitrary governments that blighted South America, Chile endured a 17-year military dictatorship (1973–1990) that left more than 3,000 people dead and missing.[5]" Chile was not free of coups if it was governed by the Dictator Pinochet for 17 years! The introduction along with the history of Chile section is heavily biased towards Pinochet and against Allende/Democracy.67.85.208.10 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I understood from the text, "Although relatively free of the coups and arbitrary governments that blighted South America, Chile endured a 17-year military dictatorship (1973–1990) that left more than 3,000 people dead and missing.[5]" refers to Chilean history in general, by contrast with the history of other Latin American nations which have had many dictatorships throughout their existence. Thus, it is not a contradiction, although it could probably be worded in a clearer way. Some bias has also been removed from the history section, and now it seems pretty NPOV to me. 190.161.104.124 (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If any one is trying to promote the idea that the military coup happened because Allende was blamed for the economical problems at the time, keep believing that and don't forget to believe that the men landed on the moon, and white people is better than black. Well I have some news for you Allende made an only lonely one mistake, after being elected as a Socialist President he declared himself as a new reborn Communist, so imagen what happened, it was the earlies 70's and there was a great concern from the USA about everything happening in Chile. CIA en el Estadio Nacional tapes, and some documents rescued from the agency prove the involvement of the US specially the personnal involment of H.K. to remove Allende from power. Or haven't you heard that the US invaded Iraq to liberate the people from the dictatorship of S.H., who the Bush administration accused of possession of Weapons of mass destruction, weapons that until today haven't been found, by the way I'm from Chile so I guess that gives me a little more insight info considering that I lived it. And I don't associate with any political or military organization or institution, pure neutral truth. --Kettenhunde (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Glossing over the past? History section almost entirely skips Pinochet's era
I guess the right-wing demons of total POV have really gotten into this article. After denouncing the popular, progressive Allende to the point of all but justifying Pinochet's coup to readers, this article skips over any mention of the Pinochet rejime's extreme human rights abuses. It does not even link to a full article about that from the history section, as it absolutely should. (The article is )

I'll scan through the history of this page to see if at some point some crazed lunatic deleted any paragraphs about Pinochet. In the meantime, please note that the page is in dire need of balancing its anti-Allende bent with some extreme criticism of Pinochet (without glossing over America's role in installing him, either!).

96.54.203.195 (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia should not be a discussion page. But a reliable source of historic facts. This and that happened. Period. No anti this and pro this stuff. It just ruins the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.140.242 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to agreed in the point that it's better to live the disputes about Pinochet and Allende out of the page, if some mention has to be made it should be without personal judgement only facts, because the division between the Pinochet and Allende followers would never end in our country and at the same time for many of us it's time to let go, and if you look at it in a very sick twisted way after 17 years of Pinochet Chile got the strength to became what it's today, a growing united nation which can't be divided not even by the power of nature, so please let the crap aside and please let us heal, thank you. --Kettenhunde (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox image
Should the orthographic projection of Chile in the infobox include the Chilean claim in Antarctica. Should claims be shown in the infobox images in the United Kingdom, Norway, France, New Zealand, Australia, and Argentina articles?Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say the claim should not be shown as its not particularly relevant to the overview article about the country, at least not enough to appear as the infobox image, whose purpose is to show the geolocation of the country itself. Denmark doesn't show Greenland, France doesn't show Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and those are actual possessions. Seems like undue weight to highlight a land claim in the "above-the-fold" image. Franamax (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem inappropriate (and inconsistent) in the infobox map. No harm with it being mentioned as it currently is in the article, and perhaps the current map could appear with that text. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely should not be in the infobox. I know it is the practice of Chile and Argentina to include their Antarctic claims in their maps but that is what they are, claims. Therefore it gives undue weight to these claims (which have actually been suspended under the Antarctic treaty) to feature them in the infoboxes on these countries. Polargeo (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it, as long as both territories are in clearly different colours and the difference is noted in the caption. MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Territorial claims, as a rule, are not included in country maps on Wikipedia. See France for an example of how to handle overseas territories. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which rule? They are included for India for example - as well as Argentina and Chile. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "As a rule" means "as a convention". Other countries with non-contiguous claims don't usually have them on their maps. It reduces clarity of the image, which should be about the internationally-recognised national territory. This is particularly true for the large Chilean claim. Should we include all of Taiwan's claims on the territory of 10-15 East Asian countries in its map? No, because it obfuscates the image of the de facto territory of the country. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't be a controversial issue, the current map distinguishes both territories by showing them in different shades of green while including a wikilink in text format that provides more information on the subject. As for the Antarctic Treaty, it's a diplomatic agreement of mutual cooperation that does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On a practical level showing the Antarctic claim means that the outline of the Chile-proper has significantly less detail than it would have otherwise.Especially in the south it is very hard to work out which areas are Chilian and which are in Argentina. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The map should not show the claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the southern hemisphere ones at least. The maps already show antarctica prominently so it makes sense to include the claims. Roke (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be easy enough but I feel that doing so would disregard the claims of other nations.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue for Australia & New Zealand whose claims don't overlap any others. (though Japanese whalers ignore them) Roke (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it might appear to validate the claims of the countries who are in the southern hemisphere while discounting those from the northern.Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Country articles should be customised to best cover the issues relevant to each country. They should not have to follow a rigid template to facilitate every possible comparison between countries; we can handle that better through separate articles and lists on the relevant topics. -- Avenue (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone mentioned "excessively consistent" below. I think that proposal would fall under breaking just simple "consistency". Consistency for the most part is important. Infoboxes are all about standardization.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are partly about standardisation, yes, but they are also there to provide a brief summary of key facts for our readers. We have a lot of leeway in what the location map shows, which we can and do take advantage of. For instance, the projection used, whether to zoom and show an inset to make the context clear, whether to highlight regional groupings, identify territories and claims, etc. Choosing to identify certain types of claims in one map but not another is "inconsistent" in the strict sense, but so are all these other choices we routinely make. I think there are good reasons for identifying the Antarctic claims of Chile and Argentina in their respective location maps, and these outweigh my desire for some consistency. -- Avenue (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The claimed territories should be removed from this and the Argentine map, as per AtSwimTwoBirds. On the Argentine map, the other claims (Antarctic or not) should also be removed.  This would allow for a more zoomed-in version of the maps to be included per SimonLyall. Pfainuk talk 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current France solution by featuring both maps. The orthographic map features Easter Island and the Juan Fernandez Islands that other maps don't. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The map on France notably does not include France's Antarctic claim. We can easily include Juan Fernandez and Easter Island next to the map of Chile without including Antarctica. Pfainuk talk 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're displaying the orthographic map in the infobox, I think Chile's Antarctic territory should be shown. It does no harm, since Chile proper will be the same size regardless. Chile and Argentina take their Antarctic claims seriously, and our articles on these countries should reflect that.
 * I do not think we have to be excessively consistent across countries in this respect. France is a good example: they have many territories, several of which are much more important to France than their Antarctic claim, and displaying the Antarctic claim would make mapping all the territories substantially more difficult, so it makes sense not to display their claim. Australia and New Zealand seem more like borderline cases; our NZ article deals with the issue by including a separate map showing the entire Realm of New Zealand. (I came here after seeing the note on Talk:New Zealand, by the way.) -- Avenue (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not simply a matter of simplicity - NPOV is a factor here. Excluding France's claim, while including Chile's claim or Argentina's claim (or indeed other countries' claims) would be POV - suggesting that some of these claims are more valid than others.  This is particularly significant as regards Argentina, Chile and the UK because those three claims overlap one another.  Consistently excluding all claims to Antarctica on the basis of common international practice would seem to make sense IMO. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The claims have been shelved under the Antarctic Treaty, but not abandoned. "Common international practice", as far as this exists, seems to be to agree to disagree, and not push the issue too far. I'd agree that omitting certain claims from our Antarctica article would be POV, as would omitting the claims altogether. But in our article on a country, surely the most relevant claim is their own. How claims are treated in other articles is irrelevant; each country's article should be NPOV when viewed in isolation. The Chilean government seems to generally include the claim in their descriptions of the country; e.g. on their tourism site. I don't see why the US POV (that the claims are invalid) should trump theirs. -- Avenue (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said the "US POV" must be served here? And no, the claim of any particular country carries no greater weight in that country's article than amy other "claim". It doesn't change to Chilepedia when you read Chile and it doesn't change to Finlandpedia when you read Finland, it's the same encyclopedia, written with neutral weight and POV. Other country articles are a guide here and they almost uniformly don't show land claims in their infobox geolocator map. They show where the country is, and where possible show internationally recognized possessions.
 * I'm not persuaded by the convenience argument either, seems like exceptionalism to me for a few nations which happen to have Antarctica included in their map projection. Or from another perspective, it's an implicit NPOV claim: "look, the bit we claim is close to us, so we should get it in the end". Franamax (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has argued that the US POV must be served here, as such, and I'm sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. But that is how one of the arguments here comes across to me. Rhetorically dressing it up as international practice is unconvincing, at least without some sources to back this up.
 * There are several other country articles that do indicate claims in the infobox map, where these are significant to the country concerned: e.g. People's Republic of China, Morocco, Pakistan, Serbia, Moldova, and India.
 * I don't think the "convenience" argument is an especially strong one, but nor is the "inconvenience" one, at least regarding Chile and Argentina. The maps including Antarctica have lived happily in their infoboxes for a while now. -- Avenue (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Chile should have two maps like the one in the France article. One map should show mainland Chile, and the other map Chilean territories outside the mainland, which would include the Pacific Islands (Easter Island being among the important mentions) and the claim of Antartica.--74.192.2.238 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The claims to territory in this part of Antartica overlap, so that there is a political conflict over who owns what. This is not quite like the Chinese claim to parts of Russia, since the claim (and the mutually exclusive claims of Argentina and UK) are expressed by each country having research stations there.  Since the teritory is largely uninhabited, it would probably be better for it not to be shown on a map in the infobox (such is intended to be a summary of important matters), but separately soemwhere later in the text of the article.  I would accordingly partly endorse the previous contribution, though the island territories are so small that they cannot conventiently be shown up on the globe projection.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About Antarctica, there's no sovereignty there as the ATS. It may be included on all the claiming countries but it will have no meaning. These are pretensions rather than claims. IMO it would be better to remove then from all infoboxes, but stated in the articles (in the Artactica article would be enough). About real dispute claims, they should be included on each country infobox IMO. Generally these include territories which where previous part of the country, lost sovereignty temporarily, or has a formal dispute claim recognized internationally in some instance or in queue, but not determinant. In any case, they should be correctly discriminated such as they are now, so there is no misunderstanding about the real de facto sovereignty. pmt7ar (t&#124;c) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Including countries' antarctic claims is important, and although I question whether it should be done in the info box image, The way it has been set for Chile now is convenient, as far as its geographic position. And as far as the France article goes I support the placement there too, the only difference is it does not show its antarctic claim as it should. In this regard, I support keeping the status quo for all of the afore mentioned. Outback the koala (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Several people have expressed concerns with it in the infobox before this RFC and here. One thing that has been brought up is still including the info. Of course we should include the info. Having an image of all of the nation's claimed and special territories would also be beneficial to the reader and would not be given undue prominence like it currently is in the main infobox image. It would also make it so no change is needed to any other article but Argentina. Does anyone know the ins and outs of editing the maps so we can get these included in both articles along with the primary images?Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I would like to add [:File:CL Pacific islands.PNG]] and File:Tca map.png or similar images in the article to present the information. File:South America location CHI.png, File:LocationChile.svg, or something else (see here for options) as the top infobox image. I'm fine delaying implementation a bit due to current events.Cptnono (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should not be on the image, due to the fact that Chile does not own it in any sense. It is merely a claim. Also, "(excl. Antarctica where sovereignty is suspended)" goes a long way. – turian  обсудить 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you accept an anonymous IP's opinion, please, think two times. France has "overseas territories" aka colonies. Chile treats Antarctica as one of their own national "homeland" territories. Im telling you, even as an argentinian, I believe the infobox is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.131.101 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi anonymous IP. It looks like consensus is against you for the most part (the info needs to be presented somehow is clear) but don't ever shy away from making your opinion known here with or without an account.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chilean claim over the Antarctic territory have been in Chileans maps for a long time, the controversy arrives when this maps appeared in the internet, we are the closest nation to the Antartica and once upon a time there used to be a tribe known as the Onas who dominated the region, so for us it always have been part of our nation, until some time ago when it became very clear the collaboration between the governments of Chile and the USA to conduct a multiple series of experiments related to global warming if you ask me, that is a cover up, if not why they don't allow not one there if that is considered no-mans-land?. I wont be surprise if Ricardo Lagos sold the claim to the USA. --Kettenhunde (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So two quick further points I failed to bring up before: 1)The suspended under the Antarctic Treaty. 2)It overlaps two other claims. Regardless, consensus heavily leaned towards doing something different. The RfC has been closed for some time so I am pulling the trigger. I am doing it similar to France as mentioned above. I am also adding the Pacific Islands (more population than in Antarctica anyways). I am not a fan of this layout asthetically and would prefer it to be in the geography section but that is another discussion.Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me, but I would prefer to see the closeup map showing the Pacific islands in the geography section so that infobox hsa the overview, geography has the detail. If that's what you mean by aesthetic considerations, then yeah. The Antarctic claim map could be moved down from the infobox bottom too, but maybe that's too touchy right now. It worries me that so much attention is paid to what is in the infobox images, when ideally we would hope that people would want to actually read the article, wherein they could find these more detailed maps with accompanying explanation. Franamax (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chile was about to be taken from list of "3rd World " nation Now, after Feb 27th 2010 eartquake?
I heard that the nation of Chile was to be taken off the list(?) of nations considered to be "Thrid World" developing nations. Since Chile has shown great economic and social strides in the recent past. Wondering if this decision because of the great economic damage to the nation of Chile will be delayed?Baveriaboy (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't happen, after all the accomplishments Chile has reached in the social, economical and human rights areas (after those terrifying 17 years of dictatorship) with the help of the USA, the same the same USA that promoted and financed the GOLPE DE ESTADO, the same USA that accused Pinochet of crimes against humanity, the same USA that today deals with Communists, Socialists, Democrats in Chile today just to promote Capitalism as the new way of government. What does concern me more as a Chilean is the price that our people have paid to make the puppet masters happy... --Kettenhunde (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering a country "third world" that is also a member of the OECD is ridiculous and shows that "third world" has no meaning. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kettenhunde could keep his personal opinions aside and show reliable and credible sources to help improve this debate, I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. Ccrazymann (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Anyway, why say large numbers of British or French immigrants came. Yes, a few did came but there was no huge immigration like in Argentina. Most Chileans still have Spanish names and are still of mixed Spanish and Amerindian descent, unless you are ignorant of Chile and like in a post neigbourhood of Santiago where everyone is descended from unmixed non-Spanish European immigrants who have blond hair and blue eyes.86.160.120.47 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all smoke and mirrors. They can pick and choose any sources they want to paint a different picture than is actual reality. What do they say about this information?


 * "Amerindian tribes are indigenous to the country, and Chileans of purely Amerindian descent are assumed to account for about 3% of the population today (CF, CQ, NE, WCD). Spaniards began to arrive in Chile in the 16th century, and while many mixed with indigenous groups, about 20% of today’s population is taken to be of purely Spanish descent (LC, EV, WCD).  Given the large mixed, or mestizo population (70%) in Chile (LC, EV, WCD), we consulted genetic studies to assign admixture proportions. These studies include evidence of an African contribution, which we attribute to individual countries according to the principles stated in the Main Appendix, Part II.3 for “other ports of disembarkation.”  In the 19th century, a small number of immigrants from Germany, Italy, Britain, and France started to arrive in Chile (LC, EV). Without further information, we attribute 1% to each of these four countries. At the turn of the 19-20th centuries, some Palestinian Arabs fled to Chile, accounting for about 2% of today’s pouplpation (LC, WCD).  Jews, estimated at 1% of the population, arrived in Chile in several waves, with approximately 85% considered to be Ashkenazi and 15% Sephardic (LC, JVL).  We attribute them to individual source countries according to the principles specified in the Main Appendix, Part II.2.


 * For Chile’s mestizos, Salzano and Bortolini (2002) reanalyze nine genetic studies and estimate the European, African, and Amerindian shares are 28%, 12%, and 60% or at 32%, 14%, and 54%, depending on the method used. However, we were unable to locate eight of the nine base studies and therefore were unable to determine what populations were sampled.  The only one of the nine we could locate, Harb et al. (1998) studied a group which considered itself to be pure Amerindian, casting doubt on using Salzano and Bortolini’s estimates for Chilean mestizos.  A more reliable study, we believe, is that by Wang et al, (2008), who calculate genetic admixture for 13 populations in Latin America, including two communities in Chile, using up-to-date genomic methods.  They find that the European, African, and Amerindian shares are 48.5%, 1.3%, and 50.2% and 42%, 2.3%, and 55.7%, respectively.  Relying mainly on this study, we use admixture shares of 49% European, 49% Amerindian, and 2% African for Chile’s mestizos.*


 * * Some older studies, using thousands of observations but less current methods, calculate admixture estimates unconditioned on ethnicity and find high levels of European genetic inheritance. For example, Cruz-Coke and Moreno (1994) summarize four studies using approximately 85,000 observations from urban blood banks, and find that European admixture in Santiago North is 61%, Santiago East 81%, Valparaiso 77%, and Concepcion 75%. These estimates probably overstate the European share in Chile as a whole, since they are based on urban samples only."
 * Do you guys have some reliable sources to back these claims up? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Additions by 68.94.9.10
Of note I haven't reverted these as I think there is some good content there - though it'll need sourcing and the English isn't always great. I did revert the ones removing information on English and German as well as changing sourced data. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

USA Flag
Why is USA flag showed up in this article as Chile official flag? Not funny to the one who replaced it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.60.4 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Vandal reverted.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 19:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unnecesary maps in the infobox
Eliminated unnecessary maps and text pertaining to the territorial claims of Chile in the infobox as these are explained fully in the section Government and Politics. --Wikiperuvian (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Chilean notes currently in circulation
The 500 pesos note and the upper 2000 pesos note are not currently in circulation as they stopped being printed years ago. The upper 5000 pesos note is a new note that has recently started circulating, replacing the lower 5000 pesos note, being this last one still abundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.164.11.2 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All the notes on the image are valid for any transaction even though some of them are not in print anymore. It should be noted that the new $5,000 note it's not the same size as all the other notes. (Ipineiro (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)).

The 10000 Pesos note it also new and has another size. The material of the 2000 Pesos, 5000 Pesos and the 10000 Pesos is not the same as before, they use polymer for a longer duration. --Benjamin.fiedler.p (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wealthiest country in South America
I was informed by a reliable source in April 2010 that Chile is the wealthiest country in South America. This could be stated explicitly in the article, unless readers consider this is all pretty obvious from the beginning of the fourth paragraph. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for this? If so I see no problem with it going into the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jose Miguel Carrera the first president?
This is more than historically inaccurate, it's an abomination. The first President of the Republic was Manuel Blanco Enclada. Also, I think that call him founder is wrong and even offensive. Please someone change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmasalleras (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm agree with the former poster, the problem goes with the fact is still heavily discussed if Carrera has enough credit as a Founder Father as O'Higgins' Side Effort. Appart of that, the historical section seems to be wrote it by a Carrerist and do not represent how that is view by the most people in Chile. I think that should be change it to a more neutral point of view. But of course I can't do it, so that's why I'm asking.--200.90.237.27 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Services Sub Section
Is there a posibility of expand a bit the Services Sub-section, under Goverment and Politics? While everything wrote there is true, in a way the services aren't propely explain it and therefore the reader can make bad assumptions: Thanks a lot for read all this and I hope someone part of the proyect here could fix it.--200.90.237.27 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Health Care is free, that's true, but the general consensus is the Health Care has bad quality. There's Private Health Care which is better, but it's way too expensive and not aviavable for the most part of the population.
 * Carabineros de Chile technically is not part of the military, but they do have Military Training just in case. They were part of the Chilean Coup of 1973, but that don't make them part of the military. They are also the most respected and less corrupt police force in latinamerica, but I can't prove this, so let that out.
 * Bomberos (The Firefighters) are an Intitution made up of volunteers. While that is true, they are highly respected by the population in general. They have a long tradition as an Intitution and they were formed by civilians out of necessity. They even DEFEND the ideal of been Volunteers in their own webpage. They do recieve founding from the Goverment, but, since they are a separate instution, they do not recieve enough money (In a way to try to force them to be professional and be part of the goverment services, but, again, I can't prove THAT either). Regional Goverments also donate money to the institution if they want, and they even have a separate law with help with those donations. They beg for money (Mainly by doing events and a national lottery) just when the money given by the goverment (All the collection) is not enough. Here's their webpage explain it.
 * Mail is handled by goverment institution Correos de Chile and private companies like Chilexpress.
 * Do you have some sources? Especially for the healthcare? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Image of Leopard 2?
I have removed images of German-made Leopard 2 tanks from articles on three operator countries, see Talk:Leopard 2. I do not think the image of a German tank in a cage is in any way representative of Chile or its armed forces. Find something else that is Chilean or even exists in a Chilean context – if there truly is a need for an ground forces image in this spot. I am removing the image. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – If you do not know what to use, look for candidates at Commons:Category:Military of Chile. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Leopard 2 regarding this issue. KimChee (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
Why there a photo of Quechua people? Quechuas not have any influence in Chile and is the third less numerous indigenous community, I think should be a photo of Mapuche people, the larger community and most representative of chilean identity. --190.93.229.112 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not both? Quechuas were influential in northern Chile. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional" English translation
The article states "traditional English pronunciation /ˈtʃɪli/, " cited to a dictionary. There is no "traditional English pronunciation" only a conventional one, based in English orthography. And because its a Spanish-speaking country, the relevance of English and English pronunciations is limited. Furthermore the name is not "also pronounced /ˈtʃiːleɪ/," it is pronounced /ˈtʃiːleɪ/, and only sometimes is it mispronounced /ˈtʃɪli/, by English speakers. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The /ˈtʃɪli/ pronunciation is actually given by the OED; declaring it "wrong" without any explanation is unjustified. Ucucha 04:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Chilean mine rescue
This obviously needs to be added...History > 21st century section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.113.222 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not really. In the long run, it is unlikely to have much of an influence on the country's history. Ucucha 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Official Residence of the President
The current entry on the list of Official Residences is:

🇨🇱 [[chile|Chile]]

 * Private residence (President)
 * Cerro Castillo (President, retreat)

Former

 * Palacio de La Moneda (President, formerly; kept as office for President)

The first goes unhelpfully to a generic article on private homes and the second does similarly to a scenic area. The former residence description is unclear. I can research and fix it but I thought it would be of interest to editors much more qualified then I am on the subject of Chile. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine: Crudos - Not traditional at all - Remove/Change Pic
As a chilean myself, I have never seen or heard about this food consisting of raw meat. Never seen it on chilean TV, magazines or anything. This type of food is not representative of the chilean cuisine at all, no sir! I'd remove/change the picture but I'd like to read what other people think about this subject before altering the page. 200.83.59.52 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed: Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

largest cities
somothing is wrong with the rendering of. The next chapter "politics" is hidden. I commented out the template --Keysanger 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting it. I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with it. Oh well, there no other transclusions. Large cities of Chile (without the -est) seems to work okay, though. - Ruodyssey (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vectorized map?
Perhaps someone with a vector editor would consider using a modification of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_America_(orthographic_projection).svg to replace the crappy map on this page. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean like this one?--LK (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Map
I changed the map for the one in the spanish version of this article, but the change was removed or not approved for some reason that I ignore. I think the map that the spanish version of the article uses is much better, not only because it is vectorized, but also because it shows the territorial claims of the country in the Antarctica, in a different color and with the corresponding legend, so that the reader can easily distinguish between the recognized american territory and these claims. ¿Why was this change not approved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.116.195 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the chilean Antarctic territory?
In the article no mention about the chilean antarctic territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.193.164 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes up in the first paragraph of the lead and the body. However, if you want to write more in the body then that would be awesome.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Middle Power?
From the more-less well sourced article Middle Power it appears that Chile is not always considered a middle power. So can we remove the sentence in the introduction that claims that Chile is a middle power? Dentren |  Ta lk  17:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna
These terms exclude fungi.

I propose the title is changed to "Animals, Fungi and Plants".

I propose the main article hyperlink after the title remains unchanged.

I propose the text following the title and main article hyperlink treats information about these organisms in the same order as in the title (alphabetical). This involves some slight movement of paragraphs. Not having access to the edit page for Chile, I have been unable to reproduce the links to references in the moved paragraphs, but I propose they remain unchanged. This all means that I propose the text is changed to:

Chile's geographical isolation also has restricted the immigration of animals, so that only a few of the many distinctive Latin American animals are found. Among the larger mammals are the puma or cougar, the llama-like Guanaco and the fox-like chilla. In the forest region, several types of marsupials and a small deer known as the pudu are found.[68] There are many species of small birds, but most of the larger common Latin American types are absent. Few freshwater fish are native, but North American trout have been successfully introduced into the Andean lakes.[68] Owing to the vicinity of the Humboldt Current, ocean waters abound with fish and other forms of marine life, which in turn support a rich variety of waterfowl, including different penguins. Whales are abundant, and some six species of seals are found in the area.[68]

For the fungi, there is a checklist which has been digitized and the records made available on-line as part of the Cybertruffle Robigalia database. That database includes just over 3000 species of fungi recorded from Chile, but is far from complete, and it is likely that the true total number of fungal species already known from Chile is higher. The true total number of fungal species occurring in Chile, including species not yet recorded, is likely to be far higher, given the generally accepted estimate that only about 7% of all fungi worldwide have so far been discovered. Although the amount of available information is still very small, a first effort has been made to estimate the number of fungal species endemic to Chile: 1995 species of fungi have been tentatively identified as possible endemics of the country.

Chile's botanical zones conform to the topographic and climatic regions. The northernmost coastal and central region is largely barren of vegetation, approaching the most closely an absolute desert in the world.[68] On the slopes of the Andes, besides the scattered tola desert brush, grasses are found. The central valley is characterized by several species of cactus, the hard espinos, the Chilean pine, and the Copihue, a red bell-shaped flower that is Chile's national flower.[68]

In southern Chile, south of the Biobío River, the heavy precipitation has produced dense forests of laurels, magnolias, and various species of conifers and beeches, which become smaller and more stunted to the south. [69] The cold temperatures and winds of the extreme south preclude heavy forestation. Grassland is found in Atlantic Chile (in Patagonia). Much of the Chilean flora is distinct from that of neighboring Argentina, indicating that the Andean barrier existed during its formation.[69] Chilean species include the monkey-puzzle tree, part of the pine-like Araucaria genus centered in New Caledonia, and southern beeches.

Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Investment
In September, 2003 Versatil S.A. Assets owned by a Canadian Investor were Nationalized in the Province of Arauco. Chile has refused any compensation or discussion.

Chile is presently modifying its Foreign Investment Legislation. Chile can at any time change its Foreign Investment Policy as it has in the past and did in 2003 with Versatil S.A.. Chile has completely disregarded the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement in its dealing with Versatil.Bill Thomson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilchile (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [Citations Needed] --MindZiper (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Inspiration of the flag
The article says the flag is inspired in United States' one. It quotes a single, undocumented sentence in a United States-based website.

Although the similitude and design times suggest some kind of relationship, the truth is that the colors (white, blue and red) are very common especially (but not exclusively) after the French Revolution, and were chosen before the design, as the Reconquista Flag proves. Both the ideas of the canton and the two horizontal bands are older than United States' flag and may have been chosen due to esthetic reasons. Moreover, both height and width of the cantons are different, and the positions of the colours have particular meanings: red is down because it represents the blood lost during the Conquista, and blue and white are on top as they mean the sky and the snow of the Andes.

As long as there is no historic source to stand the causality, IMHO, a common inspiration for both flags cannot be outrulled. 190.21.184.155 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Allende, suicide
In the 20th century sub-section from the History section   "Allende apparently committed suicide.[39][40] "   must be changed to Allende committed suicide. Here's a link that verifies the info: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/world/americas/20allende.html Sebastianbf (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

From that very article:

But for Dr. Luis Ravanal, a forensic doctor who concluded in 2008 that the gunshots were most likely fired by two different weapons, the latest autopsy “did not reveal anything different than was already known.”

He contended that the forensic team had failed to “resolve fundamental doubts” by not having recovered a bone fragment in the back of the skull that had formed what appeared in the original autopsy report to be a second exit wound, he said. Dr. Ravanal also said the latest autopsy had confirmed his fears that a 1990 exhumation had been botched and produced “postmortem fractures” in Mr. Allende’s remains, which he said made it difficult to come to a definitive conclusion about his death.

Edit request from Versatilchile, 17 September 2011
Foreign Investment Default

In September, 2003 Versatil S.A. Assets owned by a Canadian Investor were Nationalized in the Province of Arauco. Chile has refused any compensation or discussion.

http://bewarechileforeigninvestmentcommittee.com/

Chile is presently modifying its Foreign Investment Legislation. Chile can at any time change its Foreign Investment Policy as it has in the past and did in 2003 with Versatil S.A.. Chile has completely disregarded the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement in its dealing with Versatil.

Versatilchile (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly the change you are requesting? Point a section, what does it say now, and what do yo want it to say Cambalachero (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You need to pursue legal action against the company who did not pay your workers, the workers who looted your property or whoever is at blame, but NOT spam Wikipedia about it. Pristino (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

African Americans in Chile?
There is an article on African Americans. I am doing a report for them in school. I am that race myself! I think we are underestimated. You know, slaveryy, discrimination, ect. I want to do something about it! Please follow this topic adn subscribe or what ever! Thank you very much for your time!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeMePz02 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia describes things as they are, not as we would wish them to be. Fighting against discrimination is a noble cause, but Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs Cambalachero (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose African descendants in Chile have a relevancy in the article, but please consult the Afro-Chilean article for what you're seeking and studying in relation to the topic. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A few Corrections needed
Hey, I am unable to edit this page but I found some issues with it.

One in the Demographics category:

"A study conducted by the University of Chile found that within the Chilean population, 30% are of European descent and Mestizos with majority European ancestry are estimated to be 65% of the population."x

This statement is confusing and ambiguous, and doesn't seem to agree with it's source (http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/cap2/5b6.html). It seems that it should read something more like : A Study conducted by the University of Chile found that within the Chilean population, there is an ethnic structure consisting of 30% white or Caucasian, 5% of Mongoloid aboriginal and 65% predominantly white mestizos.

Also, in the Languages section is:

"In 2010, all students from 3rd grade in "Enseñanza Media" (secondary school) will be tested on listening and reading comprehension. The evaluation is compulsory and the instrument is TOIEC Bridge, developed by Educational Testing Service."

It's almost 2012. This should be taken out or updated. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimsauce (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Pacific coastline of Chile is 78,563.2 kilometres? That can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starless&BibleBlack (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012
please add hymn file so it can be played from this page.

190.101.60.6 (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What hymn file? Can you give a link? :) -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

✅, I located and added the file Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gini
Shouldn't the gini-coefficient be between 100 and 1 rather than between 1 and 0? Someone please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.86.43 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups percentages are not correct.
Most "whites"(ca. 80%) in chile are in fact castizos or even mestizos. Chile is a mestizo country but doesn't want to be identified as one. Mestizos in chile have a very light skin colour, but that is beacuase their amerindians aren't as nar as dark as mexican or peruvian amerindians. This is because chileans amerindians lived in the south part of latin america, where the sun isn't as strong as it is in countries near the equator. The castizos in chile however usually have white skin but you can see it in their face that they have a huge amount of mapuche blood(25%). You can't compare the "whites" in chile with the real whites of spain or italy because they have a total different face structur. If they were white, they should in fact look like spaniards because they claim to be 100% descendants off. You can usually distinguish a white chilean from a white spaniard by looking at the chileans eyes(usually non caucasian/mapuche eyes).

The guy above wrote his message deleting mine. What I said is that caucasian population in Chile isn't that high (60%). I fact, it should be (I don't have a good source of information) like, 60% Mestizo, 20% White-caucasian, etcétera. If someone can edit the page, please, do it. Addìo, thanks, and sorry for my bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facundil (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed it using the same source of Argenina article, which seems to be right. It also difference Mapuche people of other minor Amerindian ethnics groups, so is more representative. This is the source: http://www.worldstatesmen.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facundil (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't they change it? No way they are white,trust me i'm a spaniard whos been in chile. Maybe the editor is chilean and as most of them he denies his mapuche heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.27.106 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ETHNIC GROUP PERCENTAGE IS WRONG... CHILE'S MOST DOMINANT GROUP I CASTIZO AND MESTIZO, NOT WHITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.27.106 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Chill out. The percentages are derived from self-classification, just like the race figures from the US Census. If 60% of Chileans see themselves as white, but medical evidence puts the number at closer to 30%, who are we to judge? Pristino (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you should take the census off wikipedia because it's incorrect.... What if a black man say's he's white? In fact putting race indications on the webb is racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.27.106 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't be racist. Somebody should correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.216.143 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012
The "Largest Cities" section contains an obscene rant.

189.221.212.38 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vandalism reverted. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hello, I noticed that in the 2nd paragraph this article states "The shape of Chile is a distinctive ribbon of land 4,300 kilometres (2,700 mi) long..." but then in the first paragraph under the "Geography" section it states "...Chile stretches over 4,630 kilometres (2,880 mi) north to south..."

I haven't done the research to determine which is correct, but I think it would be nice if someone who has access to edit this page would correct one of them. Thank you for all your hard work!

Nic 156.56.253.70 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Economy
Please update the economy section!! All the data is from 2005 and 2006....7 years ago!! Please, we are in the middle of the year 2012, really outdated facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.101.54.32 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012
On the "Economy" Section, it states that "In May 2010 Chile became the first South American country to join the OECD.[17] In 2006, Chile became the country with the highest nominal GDP per capita in Latin America." When I find most appropriate for it to say" In 2010, Chile became the first South American country and the second Latin American country, after Mexico, to join the OECD." Its a simple but neccesary change.

74.248.252.43 (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on this - why do you think it's necessary to mention Mexico? Franamax (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no sources or reson given Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 30 May 2012: Blatant mistake
Please check and revise the following statement: In regards to the geographical northernmost and southernmost points of Chile, it is the longest country in the world, boasting a varying climate, and includes the 5th lengthiest coastline at over 78 thousand kilometers.[11]

The reference cannot be found anymore and the wiki article "Geography_of_Chile" does not support the text's claim of Chile having a coastline of 78,000 km, which is nearly twice around the equator.

Thank you. Torvais (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Allende
"receiving fewer than 35 percent of votes. It became a war of classes, motivated by the central government.[citation needed]" This is not serious for an Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabachocle (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic groups
The page shows that there are 0% of Black and Asian people. That leads to the impression that there are no Black or Asian people at all. Should we instead change it to "less than 1%"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.148.202 (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

New Census Figures
The new 2012 Census figures in relation with population were updated in one of the late editions. But the editors did not consider that such changes should necessarily affect all figures and articles that include populations figures in their calculations, which includes, for example, GDP per capita figures which in turn should affect the rankings of Chile in the respective articles. I'm not sure that the initial edition should have be done without such considerations. This due to the fact that now the figures simply do not add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foncea (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Condor
The article describes the Condor as "a very large bird that lives in the mountains)", which I think can be improved to suit Wikipdia. The Chilean Condor (Vultur gryphus) is a andean vulture common throughout the Southamerican Anders mountain range. It has the longest wingspan of all living birds after the Albatross: 274-310cm/9-10.2ft, and adults reaching up to 11-15kg/24-33lbs, which makes them almost twice as big as a Golden Eagle, in terms of weight and wingspan. Other common chilean bird is the Jote (Coragyps atratus), also known as Gallinazo ("big chicken") or american black vulture, common across North and South America.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.144.154 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Coastline
I just wanted to point out an error in the Chile article. According to the article "Chile's distinctive shape—4,300 kilometres (2,700 mi) long and on average 175 kilometres (109 mi) wide—makes it the longest country in the world in terms of length-to-width ratio, with the fifth lengthiest coastline at over 78,000 kilometres (48,000 mi)."

There is no way that Chile has a coastline of 78,000 Kilometers or (48,000 Mi). That would be coastline that wrap around the entire planet 1.66 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.180.116 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Corrected, thank you. BTW the source there has a broken ref link. --E4024 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Military coup
About sources I would like to add that http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html Infact is US National Security Archive. This contains a repport of CIA (also refered to), US govenment and Chile. It could be reguarded as a minimum of what CIA was up to in Chile for during the 60's, 70's and a bit longer. Now this document is long. But by page 10 I find "The Schneider Assassination" part very interesting. "CIA and the government were aware and agreed" to this killing of Pinochet's predecessor as military commander. And page 13, clearly states that "CIA had knowledge about the coup" at least 24 hrs before the coup, but still did nothing to warn the democratical elected president about this. This is an absolute minimum of the CIA involvement/support. Spooks never admit more than what's absolutelly necessary). I think this issues is enough, and more so if the whole document is studied. But as I stated before, I'm never searching for editorial war. Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to forgotten this comment first time. Conc. pure technical matters. After my first saving I noticed that I've misspelled "Henry" (Kissinger). And corrected that. Then my edit was rejected, with a comment that suggested to me that the reason for the rejection was the misspelling of the word "facsism". Then I corrected the spelling to "fascism" and saved it again. I do not understand "triplicated". But I'm sorry for errors concerning technical matters. And about fascism as such, I do not confuse fascism with nazism as communists did. (Atleast that was the case in the USSR). I never anticipated a difference between a "military junta" whitout much other agenda than to get rid of democracy - and fascism. I fail to see that a fascist general and junta leader must declare himself as such in order to be one. Wasn't Spain 1939-76, Portugal ?-1974, Argentina 1976-83 and Greece 1967-74 fascistic countries eighther, I cannot help to wonder ? But I'm sorry for errors and Your time. Also regards to User E4024. (I did understand the speed joke,actually quite funny, due to my username. And I don't think You're troublesome. Sorry)Boeing720 (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied the above from a user's TP so that everybody interested in the article may participate at the discussion. I am not very well informed on the topic, but would like to attract attention to one point at the above talk: "(The) CIA had knowledge about the coup at least 24 hrs before the coup." So does this mean the US supported the coup? (Had it been prepared in 24 hours?) What is an intelligence organization supposed to do? If they are not capable to detect a military coup (all those meetings, communications, movement of personnel etc) in the day before the action that means either the coup was very well organized or (...) My humble suggestion: We need better sources to claim this. --E4024 (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013
Under the history of this page, towards the end, when the article discusses the current status of the chilean government, there is a spelling error of the word "communist". It is currently "communisty"

Eoxixis (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Update needed
The information of the 2012 census has been published so this article needs to be updated in many ways. http://www.censo.cl Here is everything. --Tommy The Wise (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC) "Demographics" need particulary update.

Edit request on 6 April on 2013
By might or by right is bullshit! It is By Reason or by Strength, the needlessly long comment below explains that.

_This is a signature FFS_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.23.219 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of.

—

The motto is gravely mistranslated/EDIT REQUEST something...
I know little about how Wikipedia works, so excuse me if I do something wrong, but I can easily see when wikipedia does something wrong, which is another thing...

"Por razon o por fuerza". Simply means by reason or by strength. How can the translator(s) not understand that reasoning is completely different than "by right", you can claim right to the world, while reasoning relates far more to common sense and the rights it alone incorporates.

As for fuerza, it means strength rather than might, and while might is a far menacing "warlike" word and associated as such, strength means everything from the strength to stand together, to help each other, and even the strength to refrain from war and rather work out things by reasoning.

Wikipedia, I expect better, Chile`s motto has nothing to do with "by right or might" which is a common English expression but simply that it will use reasoning and strength to achieve its goals, which is FAR different.

The page is locked and I have no idea how to unlock it, but feel free to change it after confirming my claims, and understand that while I was born in Norway, and know little about Chile, I am a acclaimed Spanish teacher and my genes and half of my soul belongs to Chile.

Please confirm my claims and change it afterwards, as I can assure you that I know what I am talking about, and cannot help but to feel offended, that is my fault, but unnecessary by both what Wikipedia represents, and even more important, its standards.

Edit: To further assist in changing this, I can reveal that By right, is properly translated "por derecho", while might is properly translated "poder", and unless the Spanish meaning is gravely mistranslated, well... we can all see that it does not say "Por derecho, O poder" in the spanis motto does it?

My point is that this miss-translation makes it sound like Chile will either claim right to whatever, and if that does not work, it will use raw power to get said "claim"... excuse my language but HELL NO! It is saying it will use reason, or strength, please understand, and please get it right, I never knew I cared about a country I have only seen on tv, but this also makes me doubt Wikipedia, which is new to me.

Fix it, for wikipedia, for Chile, for understanding, or should I say, for reason and strength... heheh... enough of me thank you in advance.

80.203.23.219 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the Chilean people.
In the ethnic groups section of the article I'd like to request a change to: Chile	 white and white-Amerindian 95%, Amerindian 3%, other 2%

The percentages change every day due to birth and immigration, so I think it best to adjust the ethnicity to White and White-Amerindian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxpoligraphic (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Read more: Ethnicity and Race by Countries | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855617.html#ixzz2PsOhmZDJ

Edit Citation.
Citation number 17 returns a broken link that redirects to the Hoempage of the UN or the UN human developement homepage or whatever. I believe the page that was originally cited was moved to here: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CHL.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazier90 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Area
The addition of the 53 provinces (withour Antarctica) = 788,323.7 km². The area of Chile in the Wikipedia main article is 756,096.3 km². Which area is correct? (User: Gary) 23:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.0.117 (talk)

i don't know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianblueeyes (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Por la razón o la fuerza
This translates into; By reason or by force 2.219.148.195 (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about Student Movement or Protests of 2011-2012-2013 ??
In Chilean History ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Chilean_student_protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.176.100 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 21 November 2013
181.72.252.239 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

186.103.251.243 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Stfg (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Rapa Nui
Rapa Nui is not indigeneous to Chile, but Polynesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.13.180 (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Environmental issues in Chile
This article is a stub dealing with an enormously important topic that already has a section under Chile. As it stands it doesn't warrant a stand alone article. What little is new can be folded into the main article for Chile. Ad Orientem (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ad Orientem. Let me kindly disagree with the proposed merge. I just took a look at the article Chile, and there is a section "Geography, climate, and environment", with a subsection "Biodiversity". OK, I started a new article, which is very short so far (a stub) - but I consider that "environmental issues" really deserves to be exposed. The article Chile says almost nothing about environmental problems. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Article expanded with several issues. Please review, thank you. --Fadesga (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It shouldn't be moved.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 18:20, 2 February 2014
 * Disagree. There's lots of stuff under "Environment Issues" currently going on in Chile that deserve its own article. I'm pretty sure the Chile article summarizes each topic into a few paragraphs and gives the reader a choice to go to the main article of each corresponding topic if he/she wants more detailed info, which is why I added a "see also" link under the "Geography, climate, and environment" category that links to the "Environmental issues in Chile" article, and I hid the merging template (because it simply looks awful). MindZiper (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

'''Closing discussion. Result was Don't Merge.''' -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: By "reason or force"
As a Spanish teacher I am pretty sure that "force" is a slight mistranslation, as "strength" makes a much more sense, and while I am sure the source counts a whole deal, I wonder if a proper translation would mean even more, I mean last time I mentioned this, the translation was written as "by right or by might" and while it was sourced, it was completely wrong, anyone here that can read or/and speak both Spanish and English make sure to support me here, while "by right or by might" was once posted for the English translation of Chile`s motto, it is completely wrong as translated back to Spanish, that would end up with something like "por derecho o por la fuerza"

Yes it is true that fuerza can and is often translated to "force", yet I am certain its not a proper translation at this point, and well, I was right about the "by right or by might" part, which made Chile`s motto sound like a nation with intentions nowhere close to actually being capable of reasoning with anyone or anything which is obviously wrong and somewhat of an insult.

I wont claim I am completely right, yet I really hope people take a closer look at this, because it was wrong last time (even though it came, from a "accepted source") and while "force" is not completely wrong, I am pretty certain that strength is a far more appropriate translation.

Please understand that to change the mistranslation "by right or by might" took a lot of unnecessary time and effort simply because it was constantly argued with "it is "properly" sourced so it stays unchanged" and that time it proved to be wrong, so all I ask, is that people actually check if the "force" part is correct this time our should be changed to "strength" throughout this time instead of bringing back the old same, in the end completely needless argument, thank you.

I am sure that someone else can see my point if it holds solid ground (it sure did last time) and that someone can make changes, that said change will be made without the need for me to put up a lot of grammatical examples that are honestly comparable to what anyone can find at google translate, on the other hand though, this time it actually means that google translate is right, but I suggest people find out there, or by other means if skeptical and I am certain they will come to the same conclusion as I without the need of a list of examples of why "Strength" applies much better than "Force" As for my English spelling errors, well I am at home with a light flu and don't feel so well which is not the same as "my English sucks" 80.202.170.59 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Delete "Castilian-culturing" term from the lead
"Castilian-culturing" country!? I found this really weird description in the lead of the article. It sounds very imperialistic and subjective. I am Chilean and I have never heard that expression. Is aslo a generalization that does not match what it is written in the History, Demographics and Culture sections of the article.

Does the Unites States of America's or the Australia's articles says "English-culturing country" in the lead? Obviosly not. Also the phrase is linked to the Hispanic article, which is a ethnonym used particularly in the United States of America that covers, in a very vague way, any person "with a historical and cultural relationship either with Spain and Portugal." ¿?

Also, any further information about the cultural and historical background on the country (its Spanish Colonial past and its European ethnicity influence) should be included in the History, Demographics or Culture sections, instead of the lead.

So please I ask the editors to delete this nonsense term in the lead, which may cause misunderstandings and misinformation about the country.

Thanks!

(JM Salamanca (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

A long country when measured north to south, but #2 ranking is not correct
The remark in the "geography" section, to the effect that Chile is the second-longest country in the world when measured north to south (after Brazil) is not quite correct. Although this remark is somewhat ambiguous, Chile is no more than the third-longest north-south country in the world under any interpretation. If the remark is construed as narrowly as possible, to refer only to a contiguous geographical unit, then Chile ranks third.

This interpretation means not combining islands with mainland areas (as in the case of Canada with its Arctic islands), not combining multiple separate mainland areas (as in the case of the USA, with the "lower 48" states plus Alaska), not combining multiple islands (as in the case of Japan), not including any colonies or other dependencies, not including any disputed territory, and not including any claims in Antarctica. With these assumptions, the ranking is as follows (note that latitude difference suffices as a measurement of north-south distance):

1. Brazil, approx. 5.25 degrees north to 33.75 degrees south, total 39 degrees of latitude. 2. Russia, 77.7 north to 41.2 north, total 36.5. 3. Chile, 17.5 south to 53.9 south, total 36.4. 4. China, 53.6 north to 20.2 north, total 33.4. 5. Argentina, 21.8 south to 52.4 south, total 30.6. 6. Canada, 72 north to 42 north, total 30. 7. Australia, 10.7 south to 39.1 south, total 28.4. 8. India, 35.7 north to 8.1 north, total 27.6. 9. USA (48 contiguous states only), 49 north to 25.1 north, total 23.9. 10. Greenland, 83.6 north to 60 north, total 23.6.

If one expands the interpretation of the remark to include multiple separate mainland areas, the only change in the rankings (and indeed the only change in the numbers among the top 10) is to move the USA into the first position, at which point Chile will rank fourth:

1. USA (48 contiguous states plus Alaska, excluding islands), 71.4 north to 25.1 north, total 46.3 degrees of latitude. 2. Brazil 3. Russia 4. Chile 5. China 6. Argentina 7. Canada 8. Australia 9. India 10. Greenland

If one further expands the interpretation of the remark to include islands that are integral parts of their countries (in addition to the multiple separate mainland areas), the change in the rankings is more dramatic. The nation of France (including its five overseas departments) moves into the first position. Chile drops to seventh.

Note that this interpretation is the one that seems to be implied by the text of the remark in the article about Chile, since it states the north-south extent of the nation of Chile to include islands in the archipelago of Tierra del Fuego. Here are the rankings including islands that are integral parts of their respective countries:

1. France (including five overseas departments, Reunion being the southernmost), 51.1 north to 21.2 south, total 72.3 degrees of latitude. 2. USA (all 50 states), 71.4 north to 18.9 north, total 52.5. 3. Australia, 9.1 south to 55 south, total 45.9. 4. Netherlands (including Caribbean areas), 53.6 north to 12 north, total 41.6. 5. Canada (including Arctic islands), 83.1 north to 41.7 north, total 41.4. 6. Russia (including Arctic islands), 81.8 north to 41.2 north, total 40.6. 7. Chile, 17.5 south to 56.54 south, total 39.04. 8. Brazil, total 39, all mainland. 9. China, 53.6 north to 18.2 north, total 35.4. 10. Argentina, 21.5 south to 55.1 south, total 33.6.

If one were to expand this interpretation further still, so as to include colonies, other dependencies, disputed territories and/or Antarctic claims, the list would be thrown into a state of chaos. Which areas are to be included, and which excluded?

I am not inclined to pursue this discussion further, but I do intend to update the "Chile" article shortly.

Paul (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
My native tongue is not English, but [tʃɪli] is like in the word "Chili pepper". Wouldn't it be rather [tʃili]? I know the source says it's the former one, but the website doesn't even distinguish between [r] and [ɹ]. --2.245.66.223 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Chile world same-sex marriage map
Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on sentence of Economy, "Exports to Asia increased from US in 2005 to US in 2006, a 29.9 percent increase."
"Exports to Asia increased from US in 2005 to US in 2006, a 29.9 percent increase." What does that mean " increased from US in 2005 to US in 2006"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015
Chile's motto translation should be changed from "By right or might" to "By reason or by force". The Spanish "razón" means reason and in no way means "right". The word "fuerza" means both "force" and "might", but in this case "force" has the same etymological origin. I think whoever wrote that just wanted it to rhyme.

Af1391 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Translation is sourced . -- Orduin  Discuss 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 one external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140129123417/http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/25.html to http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/25.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chile.com/tpl/articulo/detalle/ver.tpl?cod_articulo=7225
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://es.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572974_4/Chile.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.comisionprisionpoliticaytortura.cl/filesapp/Sintesis.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150521095425/http://www.contractmagazine.com/contract/content_display/design/news/e3i128fcc3d3e64156a013dfae605b73a5b to http://www.contractmagazine.com/contract/content_display/design/news/e3i128fcc3d3e64156a013dfae605b73a5b
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100210224459/http://www.polarconservation.org:80/education/plonearticle.2005-12-28.3597747204 to http://www.polarconservation.org/education/plonearticle.2005-12-28.3597747204/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.icarito.cl/icarito/enciclopedia/canal/canal/0,0,38035857_152308989,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130818181825/http://www.medwave.cl/ciencia/11.act to http://www.medwave.cl/ciencia/11.act
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130818221629/http://www.cstandt.com/content/dutch-immigration to http://www.cstandt.com/content/dutch-immigration
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/05/22/bizkaia/ekonomia/469496.php
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.censo.cl/cuadros/censada/Cuadro06_1.xls
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12564066&fsrc=rss
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chileangovernment.cl/index.php?id=448&option=com_content&task=view
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/organigrama/organigrama.asp
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.armada.cl/p4_ingles/site/artic/20050707/pags/20050707095041.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.armada.cl/p4_ingles/site/artic/20050719/pags/20050719132849.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.carabineros.cl/sitioweb/web/verSeccion.do?cod=239&codContenido=429
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130426180022/http://www.fichaproteccionsocial.gob.cl/estad/est_int.php?id=19 to http://www.fichaproteccionsocial.gob.cl/estad/est_int.php?id=19
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fichaproteccionsocial.gob.cl/fps/fps2.php
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.safp.cl/573/articles-3523_copyright.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.globaladrenaline.com/latinamerica/chile/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://musicapopular.cl/2.0/index2.php?op=Artista&id=444

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015
Chile, oficialmente la República de Chile, es un país de América del Sur que ocupa una larga y estrecha franja de tierra entre los Andes al este y el Océano Pacífico al oeste. Confina Perú al norte, Bolivia al noreste, la Argentina al este, y el Pasaje de Drake, en el extremo sur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.62.82.15 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120510231608/http://www.bcentral.cl/eng/banknotes-coins/coins/m0100.htm to http://www.bcentral.cl/eng/banknotes-coins/coins/m0100.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.icarito.cl/icarito/enciclopedia/canal/canal/0,0,38035857_152308989,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit on the introduction
It reads:

"It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption."

As per the latest HDI report, Chile no longer leads the latin american ranking of latin america, being replaced in that position by Argentina. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.10 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.icarito.cl/icarito/enciclopedia/canal/canal/0,0,38035857_152308989,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130626010236/http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf to http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016
i would like to just be able to make it so the geo hack for chile is on the capital

Logano101 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016
The link to John William Wilson is incorrect. The link should be to John Williams Wilson as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Williams_Wilson   The latter was the sailor being referenced in the article text. Source: article on Chile and article on John Williams Wilson.

Bellebrise (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.icarito.cl/icarito/enciclopedia/canal/canal/0,0,38035857_152308989,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110426082903/http://www.protocolo.com.mx/articulos.php?id_sec=2&id_art=600 to http://www.protocolo.com.mx/articulos.php?id_sec=2&id_art=600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.icarito.cl/icarito/enciclopedia/canal/canal/0,0,38035857_152308989,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation of the Chilean motto
I think a more accurate translation of the motto: "Por la razón o la fuerza" could be "By reason or might". Reason seems to be clearer in that context. 200.30.194.84 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Currency
The currency of Chile is pesos. 1 peso is about 0.00 USD. The closest you can get to 1$ is 1212 pesos and that is 1.76$. 74.101.143.59 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Way too many images here
Just sayin'.Ernio48 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source on section 5.3, "National symbols"
On revision 17:20, 28 August 2016‎ of this article, on the section "National symbols" it is stated: "However, like the Texan flag, the flag of Chile is modeled after the Flag of the United States." The source provided for said statement is "http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/flags/countrys/samerica/chile.htm". I believe this source is unreliable. Joqmos (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/01/17/chile.elex.01/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811120405/https://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/090121/uncertain-future to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/090121/uncertain-future

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

number plate missing
In the german Wiki there is on the main page of every country the number plate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_codes) listed, RCH for Chile. Why not in the english version? Can please somebody add this to the list on the right? -- 87.167.86.179 (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And/Or the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819213445/http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/rightdegree_independence(5).pdf to http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/rightdegree_independence(5).pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706162307/http://bdtd.bce.unb.br/tedesimplificado/tde_arquivos/36/TDE-2008-08-21T100337Z-3085/Publico/2008_NeideMOGodinho.pdf to http://bdtd.bce.unb.br/tedesimplificado/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=3873
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722073846/http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514 to http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417145758/http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml to http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#c
 * Added tag to http://www.un.org/av/photo/detail/0001314.html?browse=all.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055207/http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls to http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030003958/http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/GCR20092010fullrankings.pdf to http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/GCR20092010fullrankings.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429020520/http://www.learnapec.org/index.cfm?action=exploration&cou_id=4 to http://www.learnapec.org/index.cfm?action=exploration&cou_id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016
Hi, in the sport part, the page says: " Other results achieved by the national football team include five finals and one title at the Copa América". Actually, Chile won 2 Copas America (2015 and 2016), as you can easily verify on the Copa America page. Aldoaller (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've increased the titles to two and added two runners-up positions as the Copa América has only been held since 1975 - Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronouncing Chile
Guys, Chile and chilly sounds the same since both are pronounced as the word "chilly", which lead to confusion. I'd prefer pronounce its name by saying the word "child", albeit with the letter d silent. Opinions, comrades?

Scarlet Marines (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

¿88.9% white?
The source of the CIA 88.9% is "white and NON INDIGENOUS"... Percentage includes mestizos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukirwins (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It by all means should read "white and mestizo". Whoever edited that has never been to Chile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.97.127 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Chile in Africa?
In forigns relations appears chile in Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.0.174.8 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests

 * "However, the Catholic Church enjoys a privileged status and occasionally receives preferential treatment"
 * Citation has been requested for this sentence more than three years ago. If no one has been able to come up with good sources for such a strongly POV statement within three years, it really should go.


 * Due to the geography of Chile dissimilar cultural expressions vary markedly in different parts of the country.
 * Citation has also been requested here, but to be honest, this sentence sounds like sheer nonsense to me. "Dissimilar cultural expressions vary markedly"? What else are "dissimilar cultural expressions" supposed to do but vary?
 * Since this is the only sentence in that whole subsection "Identity and traditions", I would suggest throwing out that whole subsection until someone can come up with well sourced and comprehensible content.


 * There is a lot of unsourced content in the Tourism section which makes it sound very promotional. For instance "ski resorts of international repute", "the most important musical event in Latin America", "widely known as South America's best surfing spot"
 * "Chilean education is segregated by wealth in a three-tiered system — the quality of the schools reflect socioeconomic backgrounds"
 * This may or may not be true, but it is a strongly POV statement that absolutely needs to be well sourced.


 * The section "Health care" is completely unsourced.
 * The section "Mythology" should be rewritten or thrown out. A sentence that is basically saying "Chilean mythology is the mythology of Chile" really is unworthy of an encyclopedia.
 * The first sentence of the section "Cultural heritage" is difficult to understand and sounds more like an attempt at a general definition of the term "cultural heritage".
 * "and have the worse education results"
 * It would be great if someone with good knowledge of the English language, grammar, and punctuation could go over the whole article.

--93.212.233.204 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Right wing?
"In the 1960s and 1970s the country experienced severe left-right political polarization and turmoil. This development culminated with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état that overthrew Salvador Allende's democratically elected left-wing government and instituted a 16-year-long right-wing military dictatorship that left more than 3,000 people dead or missing." I can't find any support in the BBC article that the military dictatorship was "right wing". I can't find any source stating that or explaining in which way the dictatorship was "right wing" in the wiki article about the dictatorship either. Perhaps this statement is POV? 84.55.74.120 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This regime was only purely "right wing" in it's economic policy, one example is the privatization of the banking sector. The actually system of government was fascist, which is only one part of the right wing government ideology and not the majority. Most consider "right wing" government ideology to be mostly libertarian, as the American founding fathers were. I would call the regime, fascist, with conservative economic policy. Also can we please add that while that regime killed many political opponents it lead to the inflation rate and economy recovering dramatically from years of socialism. 2602:304:CCC3:FA00:F0A0:A074:942A:1CB (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Big Baba

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/rightdegree_independence%285%29.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icarito.cl/icarito/enciclopedia/canal/canal/0%2C0%2C38035857_152308989%2C00.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nXISo4aQ?url=http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/demografia_y_vitales/proyecciones/Informes/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20InforP_T.pdf to http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/demografia_y_vitales/proyecciones/Informes/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20InforP_T.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706180053/http://www.eldinamo.cl/2013/08/19/estudio-genetico-en-chilenos-muestra-desconocida-herencia-africana/ to http://www.eldinamo.cl/2013/08/19/estudio-genetico-en-chilenos-muestra-desconocida-herencia-africana/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016124831/http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/cap2/5b6.html to http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/cap2/5b6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916211140/http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/ to http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429001707/http://www.cepchile.cl/enc_encuestas.html to http://www.cepchile.cl/enc_encuestas.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trabajoyequidad.cl/documentos/temp/TP-825-CASEN%202006%20en%20profundidad-22-06-2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160328045456/https://ustr.gov/trade_agreements/bilateral/chile_fta/final_texts/section_index.html to http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Chile_FTA/Final_Texts/Section_Index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223174254/http://www.ddhh.gov.cl/ddhh_rettig.html to http://www.ddhh.gov.cl/ddhh_rettig.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122033957/http://www.canonizacion.cl/cano_etapaPH.html to http://www.canonizacion.cl/cano_etapaPH.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ubicachile.cl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Cities in Chile?
I just wanted to find some fact about Chile and went here, but was surprised to find out that the article contains no centralized information on Chile's cities, like most country articles do. Moreover, while the article has multiple maps of Chile, none of them actually show the cities and towns of Chile. Can someone add such a section? I can add one, but its quality will likely be lower than that of the rest of the article, as my knowledge of Chile is limited. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003144646/http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/policy/church-chile.htm to https://fas.org/irp/ops/policy/church-chile.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506162601/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/01/17/chile.elex.01/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/01/17/chile.elex.01/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919231219/http://www.allsouthernchile.com/southamerica/valdivia-southern-chile-city-guide/index.html to http://www.allsouthernchile.com/southamerica/valdivia-southern-chile-city-guide/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Lautaro
The narrative reads - " "The young Lautaro" of Pedro Subercaseaux that show to genius military and hero of the Arauco war after the arrival of the Spanish to Chilean territory." - I am not clear what that is trying to say. Any ideas ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Young Lautaro" was painted by Pedro Subercaseaux. The picture is about Lautaro, a Mapuche hero of Arauco War. Please, rewrite the narrative if it is not proper English. Lin linao (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see from the link who Lautaro was, but cannot understand what that is trying to say - can you put in in Spanish, to help me understand ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that, but my (almost) literal translation into Spanish makes sense (what means it was probably trasnlated literally from Spanish): "El joven Lautaro, de Pedro Subercaseux, muestra al genio militar ["a genius about military"] y héroe de la Guerra de Arauco después de la llegada de los españoles al territorio de Chile." It is not the best text in Spanish, but it is readable. I'd prefer "El joven Lautaro, pintado por Pedro Subercaseaux, muestra a Lautaro, uno de los principales líderes militares de la Guerra de Arauco durante el siglo XVI". Lin linao (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030202246/http://chds.dodlive.mil/2014/05/19/chilean-army-commander-in-chief-visits-wjpc/ to http://chds.dodlive.mil/2014/05/19/chilean-army-commander-in-chief-visits-wjpc/
 * Added tag to http://www.cepal.cl/publicaciones/xml/9/41799/PSE-panoramasocial2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction to the English
"Each region is designated by a name and a Roman numeral assigned from north to south, although in the case of [the] Santiago Metropolitan Region [one] is not used. It is hard for nonproficient speakers of English to understand that all of these words are always capitalized in English: American, Argentinean, Bolivian, Chilean, Latino, Peruvian, Roman, and Spanish, and also Asian, Brazilian, British, Canadian, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Hungarian, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Mexican, Norwegian, Omani, Paraguayan, Quebecois, Romanian, Swiss, Turkish, Uruguayan, and Venezuelan.24.156.78.205 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out! -- irn (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

HDI rank 2018 mistake
The 2018Human Development Index (HDI) ranking locates Chile in the 44th position with 0.843 points the same as 2017, even if i check the information source of the UNDP inform, the result is the same. In the information table of the country at the top of the article, shows a decreasing symbol in this fact and is not correct that relation. Please change this, because it takes to misunderstandings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.164.68.47 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Good call, thanks! -- irn (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

General Demographic Information
Current population pyramid https://www.populationpyramid.net/chile/2017/ population pyramid [1] Steven Ingram (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how useful this is. Where does their information come from? The only relevant source I see them listing is the UN World Population Prospects, but that's dated 2015 and doesn't appear to be the actual source of the information presented. -- irn (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Economic Information
Added information about total agricultural land. Working on more agricultural information along with import/export information. --Steven Ingram (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"Ethnic Groups"
Recent studies(Chilegenomico/We are all mixed, Article in Spanish) have shown that the population of Chile is most probably 99% mixed, I mean, we know that it is almost impossible to test the entire population of 17 million people, but the study had 3 thousand samples from various regions of the country, so far, the biggest study ever made regarding our genetic makeup.

Genetics aside, we Chileans, are culturally Hispanic, to put it into perspective that's about 80% of the population, the indigenous follow being just about 12% and due to the recent influx of immigrants these foreign component comprises 7% of the population in 2019. My point is, wouldn't it be more wise to classify the ethnic groups of Chile in a general view at least, as actual ethnic groups and not with racial terms such as White and Mestizo? Something like this: 80% Chilean Hispanic(Mestizos and Whites) 12% Indigenous 7% Other/Immigrants

If you guys consider phenotype to be the most important thing when referring to ethnic groups, then yeah, saying that 64% of Chileans are "white" and 30% Mestizo(because their skin is darker) is kinda right... possibly, we don't really know for sure, self identification polls are not too trustworthy, but we can certainly take something useful out of them.

I really wanna know what you guys think about this, because this is an actually controversial and interesting topic regarding my country's society, I obviously won't make any changes to the article without permission(and I think I can't due to my low amount of editions in the English Wiki)

--Malotun (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

About Administrative division
Are there any attemps to make Easter Island work as a region? Frost-CHN (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't be realistic to create all the corresponding regional government structures for a municipality-sized territory. There is, however, a provision in article 126 bis of the Constitution that allows the creation of special statutes of government and administration for Easter Island and the Juan Fernández Archipelago, but no one seems to care about that. Keep in mind that Chile is a unitary state, so those statutes wouldn't be able to create autonomous territories. --Af1391 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Border disputes with Peru
The first two paragraphs of this section are severely lacking in quality of content, style and references, while having plenty of outright fake facts. One would expect it to be about current border disputes, but it only touches that subject on a tangent. I propose for the whole section to be deleted, except for the last paragraph, which belongs to the previous "Foreign relations" section and should be restored to it. I'll break it down to prove my point.

"There have been long arguments between Chileans and Peruvians since the 1800s because they both claim boundary coastal lines."

Too vague. No sources. It should talk about "Chile and Peru" instead of "Chileans and Peruvians". The history of border disputes seems to be beyond the scope of this article. And why is this limited to Chile and Peru? Chile has two more neighbors, and has had border disputes with all of them.

"Peruvians claim the Northern part of Chile, which is now South West of Peru."

If this is supposed to mean that Peru currently claims Northern Chile, it's outright wrong. If it's about current irredentism among Peruvian citizens, it's out of topic. If it's about historical claims (most likely), it's poorly written and still off topic.

"This also known as the "triangulation" which was made to fix the boundary problem between Chile and Peru. The decisions were accomplished on January 27, 1839 by the International Court of Justice"

It's unclear what is the so called "triangulation". Is it the small "land triangle" that Perú has claimed as disputed territory, located between the first marking of the border and the sea, after the 2014 ICJ judgment in the Peru v. Chile maritime dispute? What decision was adopted by the ICJ in 1839? Anyway, that's absurd, since the ICJ was created in 1945 (and its predecessor in 1921). Moreover, Chile and Peru didn't even border each other until after 1883 (the end of the War of the Pacific). The date January 27 is the same date of the 2014 judgement, so it may be referring to the "land triangle", but then this is an extremely badly written section. Additionally, the reference leads to a blank website.

"This became the War of the Pacific which was in the years 1879-1883.[73]"

Then the previous part was not about the 2014 judgement, but about historical disputes (out of topic) and events that never happened (the 1839 ICJ decision). Everything that follows about the war is beyond the scope of this article (and wrong).

"This was caused by the mineral resources Chile had making Peruvians believe it belong to them as well."

If I understand correctly, this means that Peru and Chile had a dispute over who owned the mineral resources and that caused the war, which is definitely not true (the war started over a dispute between BOLIVIA and Chile about mining taxes. Peru and Chile didn't even border each other back then).

"Chile had to control Sea Shipping to Peru and send out an army to invade Peru on October 8, 1879. The attempt was also made to The United States but failed badly on October 1880. There was a resistance between Peruvians and Chileans for a few years because they couldn't agree. The United States offered help with a treaty for both Peru and Chile, better known as the Treaty of Ancón. This was later signed by both of them on October 20, 1883 to keep peace between them."

This part is a summary of the war. It's more or less correct, but poorly written and way off topic.

"In 2008, Peru took Chile to court over their maritime disputes. Then later in 2014, the International Court of Justice's ruling resulted in Chile losing 80 miles from Northwestern ocean zone.[74] This ruling severely impacted fishers in the country making Chile lose a valuable trade in Northwest Chile."

Finally, this got to the topic at hand. Still, this dispute has already been solved, so it's not a current issue and has no more interest than all previous border disputes Chile has had, which should be the subject of another article. Additionally, saying that Chile "lost" a part of its sea is partial (Peru claimed that it never belonged to Chile in the first place). Plus, it's not clear what "80 miles" are supposed to mean (80 miles is, in fact, the length of the sea border that remained as claimed by Chile). It's also not true that the ruling had a severe impact in Chile's fishing industry, since almost all the fishing is done in the Humboldt Current, which is within the part of the sea that Chile kept. Such impact has not been reported and there is no source. --Af1391 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019
In the article of Chile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#Foreign_relations) there is paragraph 67-68-69 are permanent dead links. So, I think we should replace it with this link (https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations-charter/1945-san-francisco-conference/index.html) in reference section. MaghLaPolo (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: thanks for highlighting the deadlinks, the link you provide however doesn't mention Chile, I managed to find two which do and have used those. --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic Composition of Chile
Article has been restated on the ethnic composition of chile, since the current edition lacks neutrality, by the mention of a single study, when this quite accepted the difficulty of reliable and definitive figures confirm.

For these reasons we have integrated the various studies on the subject and has given greater visibility to the fact the difficulty in finding figures on the subject.

Please, before reversing this edition, discuss your arguments this space, especially the user, that arbitrarily reversed editions constantly causing serious damage to the item that many users try to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex12345yuri (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Ethnicity in infobox, 2020
Is CIA factbook a reliable source to state that Chile's ethnic make up include classes like "white" and "mestizo"? While "white" is rarely used in Chile "mestizo" is used but in limited fields, such as history or in certain political discourses. The article Chileans makes no mention of a Mestizo ethnicity. So far I suggest this article to avoid ethnic categories that are not widely accepted. The fact that a foreign source uses it (CIA factbook) by no means establishes it as maintream. <b style="color:green">Dentren</b> &#124; <b style="color: Grey;">Ta</b><b style="color: Green">lk</b> 14:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Better screen reader accessibility edit request
The voiceover screen reader automatically defaults to speaking the text in The Spanish voice. This makes me think that whoever wrote the article wrote it using a Spanish keyboard. If somebody could please fix this that would be much obliged thank you. Flags200 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Small expansion to the lead
While the article's lead sshould be kept short I find some history aspects to be missing. There is large jump from the military "successes" of the 19th century to the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. The reader is left with a 80-year long gap in history. I suggest to fill that gap with one additional sentence.


 * Chilean society changed dramatically in the first half of the 20th century with an increasing democratization, rapid urbanization, the growth of copper mining into Chile's main economic sector, the rise of workers movements, while also suffering a series of devastating economic crisis (1914, 1930–1932).

A sentence like this may help to bridge the gap. Any thoughts? <b style="color:green">Dentren</b> &#124; <b style="color: Grey;">Ta</b><b style="color: Green">lk</b> 09:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Notes


 * The lead should summerise the article below. Why not first work on improving the 20thC. history section which does not include much of what you have written here? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map
Rather than discussing the issue on various sites and talk pages, it would be useful to put comments here. Alternatively, there is a discussion here about the wider use of claimed territories on infobox maps. I suggest that being in Chile's constitution does not make the Antarctic territory part of Chile. Why then should it be highlighted on the infobox map? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if it is in the country's constitution then it should be included. Country articles don't generally just talk about the countries themselves, they include external territories as well so they should be included on maps. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline is to use a map showing the Location/Country, not the claimed Location/Country, which makes the currently used infobox map of Chile wrong. What goes into the article further down another matter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What guideline says that? The documentation for Infobox country simply says "e.g. LocationCountry.svg". There is no other guidance and the discussion at Template talk:Infobox country doesn't seem to support your claim either. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on this elsewhere. I just want to avoid a misleading picture.  The infobox has no discursive context and so must be a snapshot of reality. As to disputed areas, there is a big difference between areas which have been occupied and controlled and those which are mere aspirations, however deeply held. As an example, India did control and have unimpeachable title to all of Kashmir, but Pakistan has actually controlled the northern part for almost as long as those states have existed, so showing the area as disputed is unavoidable. The Crimea is another case, where the world community says it is Ukrainian but in current reality it is Russian. In contrast, China has never (except a brief war) controlled Arunachal Pradesh: its claim is mere aspiration. Likewise the Chilean and Argentinian claims on Antarctica and the latter's claim on the Falkland Islands have no physical reality. An article or section on those claims should include a map showing the claim, but in an infobox we should reflect the real extent of a country. Hogweard (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there is discussion elsewhere; it's been linked to, and your post appears to be a direct copy. As far as the Chilean Antarctic Territory is concerbned, there's an entire article on it so I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in the infobox here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion you refer to here Template talk:Infobox country is far from clear and I do not see a clear decision being made. I have raised the discussion again, here, because other editors said I should and not at the template talk page, which is where I think it should be. I have also raised it at the NZ talk page, with little discussion happening although Hazhk did contribute something. There is more meat to any potential discussion involving the Australian claim: the Japanese govt might want to contribute to that. Other editors do not seem to address the point I make on the template talk page about being a breach of the guideline. Even you say there is no guideline and then you refer to the guideline - use "LocationCountry"?? It is pretty brief and would benefit from a few more words, but it is still clear enough to exclude theoretical areas of a country. If they are not excluded then other infobox maps need amending. Taiwan? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion is clear that it's a template usage issue but there has been no change to the instructions. There is no breach of the guideline because the guideline does not exist. There is merely an example given and the example, based on so many other templates that I have edited, appears to be merely for formatting purposes. i.e. there is no need for "File:" or any other image markup. This is consistent with other infoboxes that invoke Module:InfoboxImage. It is certainly not clear enough to exclude theoretical areas of a country. That is an OR assumption at best. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox DST
The infobox contains

• Summer (DST) / UTC-3 and -5 / April to September

But Chile is in the Southern Hemisphere, so I would expect their Summer Time to be (approximately) September to April. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Chile Prior to the CIA Backed Coup d'tat
Concerning this line which I consider problematic: "In the 1960s and 1970s, the country experienced severe left-right political polarization and turmoil."

This turmoil refers to the anti-democratic actions of the Chilean minority coalition, including CIA funded boycotts, CIA trained agitators, refusal of minority politicians to work, Nationalist violence, and culminated in the CIA funded military coup. I believe the syntax is problematic here because the reader is lead to the conclusion that the victims, majority Chileans mobilizing collectively behind Salvador Allende, are as culpable for the turmoil and polarization as the CIA funded agitators.

I am unsure of how to word this sentence better without bloating it, and provide this talk page adjustment in lieu of a minor edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraisbeck (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)