Talk:Chile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chile article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Chile, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.

Chile is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 someone linked Chile from a cartoon page 2 Chilean Navy 3 Demographics 4 Carabineros 5 Origin of the name 6 Chilean Military 7 Chile in democracy 8 Nazis in Chile 9 Translation of motto 10 Chilean Economy 11 Economic stability in Chile 12 ¿Explain this? 13 Does Chile have Statutory rape laws 14 Anachronism? 15 Per Capita GDP correction 16 Geographical Facts 17 Mapudungun (Mapuche) 18 Improvement Drive 19 Demographics, name and vandalism. 20 geophey 21 Great History Article 22 Zaldívar picture 23 President Elect 24 Demographics section 25 Army 26 About the politico-admistrative section in the Chile article 27 Pronunciation 28 Picture of Pinochet? 29 Education in Chile. 30 Request for information on gun laws 31 Chile: demographics , Article repeats itself 32 Category:Spanish Speaking Countries 33 Miracle of Chile 34 Alejandrina Cox incident 35 redirected: History of Socialism under Pinochet 36 On the term "American" on here 37 Vandalism and content verifiability 38 Several and deep changes in revision 87135392 39 Language of the Mapuche 40 Changes 41 Chile with a 58% of Poverty??? 42 Images of Chile 43 Unuseful source in references - request removal 44 Error in link on Colchagua Province page 45 Economy 46 Sports

[edit] someone linked Chile from a cartoon page

Talk about irrelevance, but something is up. I found the link for Chile in the Totally Spies article (about three teen girls are undercover spies), one of the characters, Alex is Chilean or her parents from there. Was it already revealed or on a future episode I don't know. Is it the first time on international TV of someone, though fictious, is Chilean or from the country? I tell you she's no Borat (some of you seen the movie or the Ali G. Show recognize his name), an embarrassment to Kazakhstan and that's a real country Borat doesn't actually represent. Alex is more a child-friendly foreigner (but the cartoon is set in Beverly Hills, California, a real place) where some affluent Chileans fled to after the Allende regime collapsed (by coincidence). The globally popular cartoon's main audience is teenagers, but has adult fans. Animated in South Korea under a French/Canadian media firm, I wonder why the writers included Chile to explain Alex's ethnic (Hispanic-mestizo) features, but to mention the land will get people more interested (same happened to Kazakhstan to develop a tourist advertisement campaign to battle negative images by Borat hailed from that country). 63.3.14.2 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean Navy

There isn't a mention of Chilean Navy in Military part of the article, i'd like to add it, but i have no time... Anyway, if someone could fix that, would be great Regards Rkr2!

[edit] Demographics

This is just a nit-picky thing, but in the Demographics section, I was briefly confused by the use of XIX and XX to denote centuries. Not that there is anything incorrect about it, but using a phrase such as "19th century" seems to be simpler and clearer. Just a suggestion. 65.242.105.194 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Picky Journalist

Historians prefer the Roman numerals to that of numeric ones for the simple fact that they are more accustomed to that. Andy f 90 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That usually is not a problem (except for people who are not familiar with Roman numerals in general). It could be one here, however. Chile uses Roman numerals to designate its regións. The regións currently run from I through XII (along with RM for Región Metropolitana de Santiago. At least two new regións are being considered (XIII and XIV), but if the legislature approves the addition of those additional regións, it may start a trend. Even if the región numbers do not climb as high as XIX or XX, it does seem confusing to those of us familiar with the way Chile's regións are numbered. If being "accustomed" to a particular style of numbering is the determination, it might be best to keep the Roman numerals exclusively for the regións, to which the entire country under discussion is accustomed. I wonder what historians from Chile do in this situation? (I am from the USA, though I have studied a lot about Chile.) Willscrlt 14:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carabineros

After the military coup in September 1973, the Chilean national police (Carabineros) were incorporated into the Defense Ministry. With the return of democratic government, the police were placed under the operational control of the Interior Ministry but remained under the nominal control of the Defense Ministry. Gen. Alberto Cienfuegos is the head of the national police force of 30,000 men and women who are responsible for law enforcement, traffic management, narcotics suppression, border control, and counter-terrorism throughout Chile.

"It`s worth nothing the high prestige of Carabineros in the chilean society, getting a highest levels of reputation in the last years. (For his low level of corruption, high trustworthiness and effectiveness). "

Is this a joke?? anonymus

No, I don't think its a joke, but the wrong direct translation from spanish into english, because in spanish there is a saying: "No es por nada..." which mean like "not without any reason..." = "There is a reason", I think. Its a translation mistake. --RapaNui 14:06, 13 Jan 2006 (CET)

But if you refer to the corrpution, it's also not a joke. There is an international report each year made, done by Transparency International. Chile is a doing very well in regards to fight corruption. within the last 5 years, its ranked between 15th and 20th place of "cleanest" countries worldwide, mostly lead by scandinavian and west european countries, and Chile is the first in the rank not to be an industrialized nation. Last years it even ranked better than France, Spain and Belgium for example. This report includes up to about 150 countries , done with different methods and sources. Chile has the best ranking in Latinamerica, followed by uruguay on rank 35, I think. --RapaNui 14:12, 13 Jan 2006 (CET)

I think the "It`s worth nothing the high prestige of Carabineros..." was meant to say "It's worth noting..." but that is almost circumstantial. What I want to note is that if well Chile is one of the "cleanest" countries in Latin America, the reports on corruption and delinquency might be a little distorted since they are based on official figures and reports, which are always biased to make the running government look as good as possible. However (and being Chilean I am ashamed to mention it, but truth is honor and helps us improve) lately this year great scandals of corruption in all levels of government and within the political parties that have been ruling the country for the last 17 years have been unable to remain under cover and have caused a great damage both to the ruling politicians and to the credibility and trust in the government, that I hope yet don't trust can be fixed soon...

[edit] Origin of the name

The origin of the word Chile is not from indigenaus languages, it´s impossible, therefore they were called of another form to if same and to their territory.

I'm confused by this statement: "the indigenous Muppets word chilli"... Muppets? Is that correct? ~~Just Passing by

"Chile" it could be an Aymara word meaning "cold". Lin linao 04:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean Military

Does anyone have any information on the military of Chile? James Trainor 07:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Checking the resourse page where some of the military info was taken, I saw an error. The article says:

"The Chilean Army is one of the most professional armies in the world and has one of the most 

technologically advanced armies in Latin America."

where the U.S Department of state page says:

"The Chilean Army is one of the most professional and technologically advanced armies in Latin America."

I'm Chilean, and I know that our army ain't the most professional in the world [even from L.A], so I'm going to change that. [to anyone, if we were *that* professional, the tragedy of Antuco would have never happened. Check for more at http://www.emol.com/especiales/pagina_antuco/]

Darius 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also Chilean and also doubt about "most professional in the world", there we have other examples like Israel, Great Britain, Russia etc which are by far more professional, if there is a way to evaluate professionalism... eventhough the comandos have a quite good reputation, as they regularily rank in the first places in international comparisons at competitions, but thats not really something you can judge in real live.

But it's no doubt that within the region, chilean army is by far the technically most professional and sophisticated Army in the region, by the exception of Brasil. Just research for the Leopard II 5 tanks, there is no tank in the region coming near to the potential of this tank... next one would be the very old T-55 model of Peru, and there are about 40 years of difference in technology between these vehicles.

The Airforce is being renewed with 10 brand new 0-mile F-16 D50 Block Fighting Falcons, the most advanced fighter the US sells to foreign countries (JSF they only keep for themselves). Another 28 well maintained F-16 are being bought additionally from the Dutch Air Force. Not to count the more than 50 Mirages already being used by the FACH and other older but well maintained Phantom models.

Then we have the navy, which is also being renewed with UK Fregates type-23 and some other heavy Fregates from the Royal Dutch Konijklike Marine. 2 brand new French Scorpene Submarines bought joining the rest of 2 old but robust type 209 submarines, the scorpenes in area of the convential non-atomic submarines are being considered the most sophisticated ones. The method to renew the military equipment is being critized by neighbours, because cChile choses the periodic exchange of material, instead of continous renewal like other armies do. --RapaNui 20:37, 16 Jan 2006 (CET)

I'm adding the U.S. Department of State as the source of that statement. Otherwise, it sounds like a phrase with weasel words. --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chilean armed forces is able to acquire technologies from developed countries (the U.S., Britain or France are examples) and came up with internal defense methods, but no risk of a foreign invasion. Whenever Chile is economically healthy, the government has an easy time to purchase weapons. The statement of Chile has the most advanced army in South America has little merit to back their claims. I've heard the Chilean economy is among the most stable in Latin America and once boosted the longest period of democratic rule in the Americas until the 1970's. Appearedly, Chile has been able to achieve a fine degree of economic stability, except the nation's poverty gap and shared some of South America's political crises throughout its history. --Mike D 26 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm Chilean and here the army still engages in mandatory conscription. Is that the mark of a "professional army"? Erisie 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

doesn't matter, germany still engages mandatory conscription, this does not make the army "less professional". --194.203.213.20 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 2006 was the first year, where the amount of voluntaries met the target of admissions, and no mandatory conscription was necessary. --194.203.213.20 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile in democracy

• Chile has become a bastion of democratic political stability and successful trade policies.
• The percentage of Chileans living in poverty fell from 45 to 21 percent between 1987 and 2000. Literacy and life expectancy have risen steadily, while infant mortality has declined.
• Chile's gross domestic product has more than doubled since 1994. GDP growth in 2001 was 3 percent despite the international economic slump, and many expect it to rise to 5 or 6 percent in future years.
• Inflation was slashed from 27 percent in 1990 to 3 percent in 2001.
• The United Nations puts Chile in the top tier of nations best prepared to compete in the global economy.
• But the country's confidence has been impaired by the continuing controversy that rages over the 17-year rule of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
• Also, relations with the United States are somewhat tainted by lingering resentment over the US involvement in the 1973 coup and Washington's support for the Pinochet regime.

From Success Story in Latin America

--Uncle Ed 19:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On that last point there; shouldn't the article include some details of how the U.S. was involved? TomJord 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)TomJord

Agreed, the US is always involved in the political affairs of the world; especially Latin America. So there should be something to that effect added. Andy f 90 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The country has been fortunate in many cases to decrease poverty rates and combat government corruption, yet Chileans are divided over the issue on the legacy of Augusto Pinochet's military regime. One side said Pinochet saved the country from financial ruin and restored an amount of democratic rule esp. when he withdrew from power in 1990. The other side said Pinochet was a dictator and turned Chile to a police state with thousands of opponents dead or missing.

Chile was afraid of becoming communist under the Allende regime, an error in part by Chilean voters in 1970 to make Allende the first elected Marxist president in the Americas. The Soviets failed to back Allende in most situations, because his stance was comparedly liberal and he tolerated public criticism who struggled with unemployment, food riots and hyper-inflation.

But the purpose of U.S. support of Pinochet and how the CIA placed him into power is simply part of the cold war era, a battle between democracy and communism. One thing is certain in Chile was the introduction of economic reforms under Pinochet in the 1980's, based on American capitalist programs and a laissez-fare approach to the country's business climate. Pinochet was backed by the elites and upper-classes headed the country's economic system.

After Pinochet retired from power, democracy returned when the national economic miracle took place and free trade agreements with the U.S. Today, Chile is a rare example of developing nations able to made a transition to not only restore democracy, but the recent booms enriched the country. --Mike D 26 05:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chileans are renowned for their European socialism, but struggle with Latin American problems of massive poverty, corruption and dictators like gen. Pinochet. However, Chile held records of the longest government without dictators out of 20 Latin American republics, before the title went to Costa Rica (60 years), Uruguay( 75 years) and Mexico (85 years). Democratic innovative countries Brazil and Venezuela kept returning to dictatorship or extreme political leaders.

The reason to explain the nature of Chilean politics may be economic, cultural and progressive development to handle it's problems in a less radical matter, but only one in 1970-73 did the system was driven downward and the U.S. CIA admittedly interfered in Chile to dispose Salvador Allende, an elected Marxist president.

What was meant to restore democracy and free enterprise, Pinochet became president by force and his crackdown on political dissidents in 1973-76 brought on one of the bloodiest campaigns in the late 20th century. The death toll was over 10,000, but exact statistics remain unknown as some prisoners disappeared without a trace.

Without wanting to defend atrocities Pinochet did under his 17 year rule, it is quite exagerated to name his rulership one of the bloodiest in the 20th century. This simply shows some kind of ignorance of our world history of the last hundred years by previous author, or is rather politically motivated. During 17 years of Chilean dictatorship, 3000 people have died/dissapeared. This is not even leading on regional basis, whereas in Argentina in 7 years of dictatorship, more than 10000 where killed/dissapeared (nobody talks about this? strange...) or paraguays also 3000 dead out of a far much smaller country. not to count the 30.000 dead under Fidel Castro. Still then, this cannot be compared with genoicides commited by Turkey (500.000 Armenians), the Khmer (4 million), Hitler (5 million) or Stalin (7 million). These are to be considered the bloodiest campaigns of the 20th century. --194.203.213.20 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Today, Chileans are divided over Allende and Pinochet, and who's fault is it: the U.S. capitalists or Soviet communists for bringing Chile to near ruin. Bachelet isn't pro-soviet like in the past, then if she choose sides with America, the majority of leftist leaders oppose her and Hugo Chavez may personally insult Bachelet. Fidel Castro was known to called Mikhail Gorbachev, Hu Jintao of China and all reformed communists "traitors" and "yankee sympathizers". + 207.200.116.197 redirected by 207.200.116.138 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazis in Chile

Most chileans have no knowledge about their own history! To many years under Pinochets dictatorship?

To connect "Nueva Braunau" with nazism is pure ignorance. The german immigrants to the south of Chile arrived in the end of the 1800 century, decades before Hitler was born. Most of the immigrants in Valdivia were democrats escaping from the Kajser persecusions in Germany. The ones that founded "Nueva Braunau" were poor german farmers recruted by the chilean government to "colonize" the territories the Chilean governement stole from the "araucano" indians.

( Instead of "araucano indians" should be "Mapuches" - Alex Hernandez. )

Many nazis fled to south america, including chile. Colonia Dignidad is said to have been a nazi refuge used by pinochet to torture people.

That is true, if you head to the south youll even found in the X Region (the 10th) a small farming city named "Nueva Braunau", for those of you who cant remember, Braunau is were hitler was born. In santiago, the immigration of perubians, the lack of better education in the poorest sectors and the deep gap between rich and poor has led to an increase of at least 1500 nazi sympathizers in the city of Santiago. Of course, we in Chile are all "mongrels", even though i look very white, several of my last names are of Mapuche origins, yet, most of the nazis here actually refer to themselves as aryans (wich is odd, considering that none of them actually is). They are violent gangs mostly, skinheads. Needless is to say that they wont be reviving the reich any time soon.

Chilean Nueva Braunau was founded in 1872 (!!!) so even before Hitler was born, neither nazism was invented! So this combination to Nazism is rather coincidence. Think that is maliciously intended to combine nazism with Chile, but maybe also rather ignorance. The german imigrants in south Chile came from "Schwabenland" midth of the 19th century, most of them were atracted by the chilean government to settle in the south, as their working force in the inhabited area was very welcome. They had fame for fertilizing the land. So even if you visit south Chile you will not be able to oversee their cultural influence,. Of course there are also fleed nazi's after the second world war, like for example Paul Schäfer and his followers, that's everywere like that in the world, also in the USA, but they are really only few agains the about 100000 german originated people living in the 10th region, their ancestors came to Chile before 1900. Maybe there is also generalizing, due to that neighbour countries like Argentina and Paraguay had a quite narrow relation to the nazi Reich, especially under the Argentinian President Peron, they atracted and offered refugee to many nazis after the second world war. During the 2nd World War, Chile was a nation belonging to the allied. Last but not least, Nueva Braunau is founded by inhabitants of the today chech city Broumov (Krinice) ,not to confuse with the more southern natal city of Adolf Hitler, Braunau an der Inn --RapaNui 11:57, 13 Jan 2004 (CET)

The fellow above doesn't know what he's talking about. Broumov is Braunau; the other Broumov is on the Sudety border with Poland to the north. Nueva Braunau, as anyone can find out here in Chile very easily, was founded by Austrians - as were other towns in this region. I should add that Braunau was the original name, of which the Slavic "Broumov" is a variant. There is no history of Czechish immigration to this country nor to Argentina. Thus: Nueva Braunau, like it or not, received it's name from the town of Hitler's birth. If it's any consolation to the sensitive souls, it was founded before his birth. -- Marshall Lentini

The south-chilean Nueva Braunau was not named after the austrian Braunau where Hitler was born, but after the town of Braunau in Bohemia (or "Böhmen" in german), actual Czech Republic, having today the name of "Broumov" where a lot of german immigrants came from. By the time of the settlement of Nueva Braunau that was german territory, there the explanation of the actual czech location. The statement that Nueva Braunau "was founded by Austrians" is doublely false: they were a majority of "bohemian" germans and they did not found the town, they just settled there. In fact it is not a independent town, but administratively dependant of Puerto Varas. The name is just a unfortunate coincidence with Hitler's place of birth. -- Joaquín Brintrup

Not even. Chile has a long history of immigration. If some Nazi sympathizers found refuge here wouldn't be surprising. Andy f 90 21:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The image of Chile as a more Europeanized country, despite the majority of Chileans have AmerIndian blood, would attract a few post-war Nazis to settle in Chile. Immigration levels to Chile is small than of Argentina and Uruguay, due to the geographic location of Chile faced the Pacific. But for a large German community in the south-central part of the country reminds us Chile was a land where many people migrated to restart their lives.

The low level of settlement in the early days of Chile, once considered the least developed colony caused the authorities to consider a policy to promote immigration of people willing to work and develop. Chile has a peasant class but not enough field workers when there wasn't enough indigenous groups after they were pushed out or decimated. African slaves were reportedly scarce (less than 1 percent of the population) and not been very practiced.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's, the Chilean government advertised to European migrants on bargain land deals, and job opportunities in nitrate mines, lumber mills and industrial growth. A mass hiring program to produce their acclaimed wines and pleantiful fisheries required immigrant workers.

Trans-oceanic ships had provided transportation of immigrants, when ships used to stop by Chile in large numbers before the opening of the Panama Canal (1914). Railroads from Argentina brought a large number of more immigrants and the government hired rail workers from Japan and throughout Europe to perform needed labor.

Chile brought on a level of envy to its' poorer neighbors: Peru and Bolivia with the 1879 war of the pacific, when Chile acquired copper-and-nitrate rich lands of the Atacama desert. Bolivians insist Chile to return a portion of the Pacific coast to the land-locked mountainous country.

To this day, reports of border tensions and diplomatic issues with Peru and Bolivia frequently occurs, and in the 1990's a news rumor spoke of Peru wants to acquire scud missiles to solve their problems with neighboring lands based on boundary conflicts (Ecuador, but this was settled in a 2001 treaty).

I disagree on the idea of Chile is a Nazi refuge or a white racist haven, probably to insist a southern hemisphere country with a caucasian majority or an European culture was hard to native peoples. This is ironic when Chile is allied with the U.S. during world war II but didn't fight in battle.

All I know is Chileans are proud to be culturally homogenous, but a diverse ancestry of various races came together through intermarriage and cultural assimilation. Included are the 5 percent are American Indians, the Mapuches belonged to groups never been conquered under the Spanish...only the Chileans defeated them in the 1850's. --Mike D 26 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of motto

Por la razón o la fuerza

I'm not exactly fluent in Spanish, but I'm fairly certain that "By reason or strength" is a better translation than "By reason or enforcement". Enforcement doesn't mean the same as force or strength. Am I right? —Bkell 06:15, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

and I am not fluent in english but I think enforcement is the better translation, although "fuerza" is force , "Por la fuerza" means to obligate somebody to do something.. enforcment.

Definitively this should be considered, but i'm not 100% if the spirit of the motto is to call for enforcement.--Guillermog 02:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current translation (By reason or by force) is OK. It is in the spirit of the -sometimes criticized- Spanish original. --Cantus 02:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I am a chilean and fluent in english. I believe "Por la Razon o la Fuerza" is best translated as " By Reason or by Force"

I'm also Chilean and fluent in both languages and my opinion is that "By Reason or by Force" captures the meaning and the spirit of the motto (Though "Enforcement" in the meaning of making someone do something by using force is the literal translation). Something curious is that the original motto was "Por la razón, o la fuerza" with the period character making it less "aggresive" when read.--PlutoM

It should be noted that the motto is actually an indirect translation of the motto of the Old Country (before the Spanish Reconquista), "Aut Consilio Aut Ense" which roughly translates to "By council or by sword".

Changed it from "By right or might" to "By reason or strength", because it carries less ambiguity ("right" does not translate to "razón"). 213.54.225.2 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity to English speakers. —Cantus…☎ 21:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read the phrase as an ellipsis that states the means and leaves open the aims, in analogy to the older phrase menioned above. You could say that "right" is a means also, but I guess it´s much less clear what is meant. 213.54.214.193 00:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For me, estetically speaking, I prefer "By Force or Reason" as a translation to "By Reason or Force" because it just sounds a lot more catchy. However, I wouldn't use this as a translation because i think it goes against the original phrase which suggests that "I will convince you with REASON first and if that doesnt work, I'll kick your ass!

Sincerely speaking, thats exactly the originally meaning. Due to modern interpretation, this has led to many controversities in Chile, that it should be changed to a more moderate sounding motto, like "by the force of reason". But traditionalists insist, that this old motto does not have any negativ aspect, as it just means the defending of reason: By reason... and if this doesnt work or is not respected, THEN by force... RapaNui 01:22, 09 Jan 2006 (CET)

I agree. I'm also a chilean fluent in both languages and I agree that by "reason or by force" sounds the best on this case EduardoGonzales 4:57, June 12, 2006

By right or might is a phrase more related to Martin Luther than to the actual meaning (textual or not) of the chilean motto. It doesnt represent at all the true meaning of it, and should be changed ASAP.

My two suggestions are the following:

• By Reason or Force - most accurate translation.

or

• If not by Reason, by Force - not textual, but more representative of the meaning.

My regards.

I think that the "meaning" of the motto is clear. But it must be used as "Por la razón o la fuerza" without any translation..... "¿En dios confiamos?"

- Kuur (GMT -4) 18:47, July 17, 2006

Done. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean Economy

any GDP figures? per capita?

Look in the infobox. —Cantus…☎ 05:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic stability in Chile

To compare Chile on economic stability with Latin American countries may find whom may be in a better position. South American nations tend to show more patriotism and may not like to hear other countries' achievements, but a massive pan-Latin American consciousness is under way for more unity feeling of Chile and other lands of the continent. Anyway, there's a debate on whether Latin American countries are under "third world" socialist programs or under an old world elitism dates back to colonial times.

Mexico, for example, had a revolution to dispose elite authoritarianism and historic records spoke of peasants rose against the abuses of landowners, and after the revolution, a new republic was created and the 1917 constitution modeled on the U.S. called for democracy and land privatization. Today, the Mexican economy and previous governments are full of corruption and a one-party system (before 2000), mismanagement by state/ national officials, and widespread poverty in rural towns or villages.

I don't know who's fault is it made Latin America a society of haves and have-nots, but far-left partisans like former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador is a presidential candidate and he's just as leftist like Castro, Chavez and to a lesser extent, Bachelet. The U.S. never supports a candidate with hostile and opposing views of our country, but nothing to worry from Chile. + 207.200.116.197 redirected by 207.200.116.138 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Chilean economy in the 1990s was one of the world's fastest growing, and a few under-developed nations poised to move forward (i.e. China, India, Iran, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, and with Russia and Eastern Europe). Copper remains a major byproduct of Chile, but economic planning in the Pinochet regime expanded byproducts and natural resources: Fish, wines, winter fruits, offshore petroleum and industrial manufacturing. NAFTA attempted to include Chile in the 1990's, but a free trade agreement in 2001 increased economic growth with the U.S. and Canada.

The Chileans heavily trade with Europe, Japan, China, South Korea, Australia and oil-rich Kuwait, since it's believed Pinochet has petroleum stocks. In the gulf war, Chilean arms dealer billionaire Carlos Cardoen was accused of profiteering from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by his arms supply. The economy must did well, then when you hear of ITT, Ford, Kennecott, Wal-Mart, the Home Depot and Microsoft brokered deals in Chile, this is like we got a new "Asian Tiger" but in South America.

I hope Michele Bachelet will bring forth new prosperity like predecessors Alywin and Lagos did in the 1990s, except for a mild recession in 2000-01. General Pinochet's globally publicized trial for his role in having Spanish agents killed, and human rights accusations brought Chile on the map. But, let's see if Mrs. Bachelet brings Chile back as an innovator, not only to have a woman elected as president, she's the 45th female leader in the world (historically). + 207.200.116.197 - redirected by 207.200.116.138 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ¿Explain this?

Though Chile's political history since then has been erratic, the country has enjoyed constitutional rule and a republican form of government throughout much of its history.

Erratic? In what sense?

PlutoM 17:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That whole section has been refactored. —Cantus…☎ 05:08, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does Chile have Statutory rape laws

According to ageofconsent.com, Chile's age of consent is 12. This doesn't sound right, this page points out that the pedophilia laws in Chile made the Pedophilia threshold age 12, which can very well be the laws that ageofconsent.com link to. Since this threshold has been increased to 14, I have marked Chile's age of consent as being 14, but that still doesn't sound right. Can anyone from Chile confirm or deny the existance of statutory rape laws; their absence is odd considering how developed Chile is economically. Samboy 09:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Age of consent now 18. Statutes have recently change. 200.72.31.50 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is not such thing as age of consent in Chilean law or literature, with that name, but in fact that threshold is the age of consent. Above 14 if a person has sex without consent, the sexual partner commits other crime wich is not rape, but something named "estrupo" in Chile, wich is a crime too, but the sentence will be shorter.

(And, as civil law system, Chile does not have common law crimes or anything, everything is statutory).

Regards.

AION.

"Estupro" is not sex "without consent", that is rape. Sex with a girl 14 or older but younger than 18 is a crime if there is "deceit". --AstroNomer 01:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

According to Chilean law, a man and a woman can get married without parents written authorization by the age of 18, and the 12 year old age mark for women refers to the age they can get married, under written permission of her parents.--jotaigna

The law changed after some abuse cases (abusing a minor under 18 but over 12 wasn't the same as paedofilia). Before a woman would marry at 12 and a man at 14. Now a woman can marry at 14 and a man at 16.

Note that due to some recent high-profile paedofilia cases, these laws may have changed or may change soon. Gerardo199 02:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Chilean lawyer: In Chilean laws, any sexual intercourse with a 12 year old kid or below, is rape, even if the kid agree.

Between 12 and 18, if the kid agrees about having sex, but cheated by an adult, coud be a felony called estupro

[edit] Anachronism?

The conquest of Chile was carried out in 1550 by Pedro de Valdivia,

Did Chile exist then as an entity? A-giau 04:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was called Chile by the natives. —Cantus…☎ 05:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

it existed as multiple colonies of natives, but not in the sense of how the inca empire was, so it's safe to say that chile didn't exist prior to the spanish conquista

just like the river plate, the indians tricked the spaniards into conquering territories with little economical importance. The indians tricked the spaniards saying that Chile was rich in gold. Even though there were only multiple colonies, the Mapuche united in wartime to counterattack the spaniards, sadly, they only united in war time, wich was the only time they ever had 1 leader (one of the great mapuche leaders was Lautaro)

[edit] Per Capita GDP correction

It is true that Chile's "Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP" is US $10981.35 for 2005; however, the figures we use here on Wikipedia (for ranking, etc.) are the IMF's "Gross domestic product per capita, current prices" figure, which is $5741.61 for 2005. Speaking of which, the IMF figures here on Wiki are two years out of date. Samboy 11:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Samboy. Here on Wikipedia, we use as reference for all infoboxes, the list List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. The source for that list is the World Bank's 2003 data. For the World Bank compiling this kind of data for all countries isn't easy, so data for 2005 will not be ready maybe until late 2006, so it is advisable to use data for 2003 which is much more solid. Also, we use PPP data and not Exchange rate data because PPP data is comparable among countries, and since we put a ranking number beside the data this seems more justified. If you want to change the source data, I suggest you take this conversation to the aforementioned page, because the data from that page will continue to be used to mantain consistency among Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. —Cantus…☎ 12:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we have been using the nominal figures--until this change to the Country Infobox template to use the PPP per capita figures. Note that this change is still new, and, indeed, last night the wiki cache still linked me to the old nominal figures version of the country infobox. Also, as of last night, Mexico still used the nominal GDP figures. I just corrected Mexico; if this results in an edit war, we will need to implement the Iceland compromise. Samboy 22:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I made that change, always in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, of course. The "parametrisized" template now being used in some 30 countries (Template:Infobox Country) is using PPP figures, and nobody has been opposed to this until now. If you would like to change which figures should be used in infoboxes, you should raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. I'd be happy to discuss why I think PPP is better there. —Cantus…☎ 04:23, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the change. My only concern is the fact that not all countries are using GDP PPP figures right now; I would like to see Wikipedia be 100% consistant in this regard instead of having some pages using the nominal GDP figures and other pages use the PPP figures. My concern is this: If this is a change you want, I feel you have a responsibility to go through all of the countries with GDP figures. this page may have countries in it that still use the nominal GDP figures (such as Mexico until I changed that page). Samboy 07:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All of those countries have both PPP and Nominal figures, so I don't see that as a problem right now. Yes it is inconsistent to have PPP only in some and PPP and Nominal is others; but it would be far worse if some countries had only Nominal and others only PPP. All of the countries will begin using the new parametrisized template once people begin making the changes. —Cantus…☎ 10:28, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

People, white man? Really, just go to [[1] if you want this change yourself. Should only take a couple of hours. Samboy 06:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical Facts

It is currently claimed Chile is the world's longest country, at over 4,000 kms. But Russia is at least 6,000 km from west to east, and that does not take into account offshore islands such as the Kuriles. What is the basis for the claim for Chile? Cheers JackofOz 02:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RTFA. Quoting from the article:

Chile is the longest (N-S) country in the world (over 4,200km), and also claims a large section of Antarctica as part of its territory. (emphasis mine)

—Cantus…☎ 03:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Since the N-S is highly relevant to the claim, I suggest the brackets be removed.

But why is the longest N-S country of any particular interest? Is this fundamentally different from the longest E-W country - or is E-W distance a measure of wideness, as distinct from longness? Surely it's all about distance within the country, not whether it's oriented N-S, E-W or diagonally. Cheers JackofOz 07:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems there are rankings for all :-D. Baloo rch 02:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say it's a source of national pride, much like Russia's E-W length and 11 time zones. And, as Baloo rch pointed out, there are statistics and records kept for nearly everything. Many people find such rankings interesting. Willscrlt 15:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For a E-W there is no significant climate change as there is N-S. The longest E-W is nice but irrelevant

What is the distance E-W, keeping in count Easter Island?

Using very, rough estimations from MapPoint, if one includes Easter Island, Chile is only 28-40% the width of Russia, depending exactly where you measure from and to. The westernmost point of Easter Island is roughly at 109.45W. The easternmost point in mainland Chile at the same latitude is in Atacama at 68.56W (40.89 degrees of separation). Trying to stretch the distance as far as possible, measuring to the tip of Antarctica is 55.04W (54.41 degrees of separation). Repeating this with Russia results in Kaliningrad (which is slightly separated from the rest of Russia) at 19.96E, Leningradskaya (westernmost contiguous place I could find) at 27.88E, and the Russian/US border at 168.98W (or 191.02E to keep the calculations simple). That means that Russia has 134.14 degrees of separation in comparison to Chile's 40.89 (30.48%), or 171.06 degrees of separation compared to Chile's 54.41 degrees (31.8%) (again, depending on if you are being conservative or expansive in your measurements). All things considered, including Easter Island or the disputed Antarctic territories in these calculations is pretty silly. But it was still fun to figure out. Now if only I knew how many miles/kilometers were in a degree... :-) Willscrlt 15:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mapudungun (Mapuche)

Please check at http://www.mapudungun.cl/ this language is spoken by more than 200 000 people in Chile!! Not official because most chilean have the erroneous believe that they are all europeans even if the looks show something else.

I've looked briefly, and I can't find any sources which say that Mapudungun (the language of the Mapuche) is an official language of Chile. In fact, the Wikipedia page on it says it's the official language of, and I quote, "none." I'm wary of the claim an anon user (4.239.114.37) just added to this article that it's one of the official languages of the country. --Whimemsz 00:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

As far i know (as Chilean) the only official language is Spanish. (i've never see any official document in mapadungun). In fact, i would be not surprised at all if German language is more widely speaken in Chile as mapadungun language : southern Chile's german immigrants preserved it language and it is not rare to hear it in Osorno or Puerto Montt. On their side most urban mapuche didn't traspassed the language to their children in order to avoid social discrimination and only in the last years emerged a movement in order to re-value mapuche traditions among the urban descendants. Baloo rch 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the info! --Whimemsz 03:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

i should point out that mapudungun is just an indegenous language and it doesn't even have writing, only phonetic aproximations.

tis a diying language, my grafather can speak it and most people who indetify themselves as descendants of mapuches. I dont know anyone (besides my grandfather) who actually speaks it.

YES IT DOES HAVE A WRITING SYSTEM, IN FACT MAPUDUNGUN HAS ITS OWN TEST WIKIPEDIA WHICH ALLREADY HAS MANY ARTICLES! heres an article written in Mapudungun accoridng to ethnologue there are 200,000 mapudungun speakers compared to 35,000 german speakers thats more thats nearly 6 to 1.[2]Qrc2006 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NO, Mapudungun doesn't have a writing system: Mapudungun_phonology

In fact, there are 4 major writing systems, mapudungun phonology explains it. --Lin linao 05:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that we Chileans are taught in school (and as far as I can remember, it's in the Polytical Constitution of the Republic), the official language of Chile is "Castellano" (Castillian, from Castilla, a province of Spain which was the political center of that country during the conquering of Chile). Regarding the Mapudungun language, as far I've been told be relatives that have close contact with Mapuche people (both humble peasants as well as professionals proud of their origins), the language itself doesn't have a written form, but along the years even from the Colony there have been a number of recopilations of words of this language both in Chile and Argentina, with several published dictionaries (especially in Argentina); yet, these dictionaries are phonetical approximations to the words.

I think that your previous statement is a contradiction. Obviously almost nobody claims a milenary Mapuche written system, but there are 4 different main stablished alphabets ("Traditional", Unificado, Raguileo and Azümchefe). All they argue to be a good approach, but they are so "phonetical" as is Spanish or German. Bye. --Lin linao 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics, name and vandalism.

Hi:

About the recent incidents of vandalism in this article. I just don't understand why they or he do this changes. Some of them are so meaningless, like changing the proportion of mestizos or the origin of the name. I just don't understand.

Albert 20:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] geophey

what happend during 1960 when the bigest valcano eroupted?????

It was the biggest Earthquake with some volcanos involved, but it was not the main factor. The biggest change was in the Lake Llanquihue, which was emptied by the quake and the waters flooded into nearby areas taking many lives. The quake was in what now is the 10th Region of Chile, affecting the cities of Valdivia and Puerto Montt. It was very close to the 150th anniversary of the first government of Chile and the celebrations where scaled down after the events. Albert 13:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement: "The biggest change was in the Lake Llanquihue, which was emptied by the quake and the waters flooded into nearby areas taking many lives." The biggest harm was made by the subsequent tsunami, that reached Hawai and even Japan, killing ca. 7000 persons and sumerged (¿?) coastal lands almost 2 meters.

Bye. Lin linao 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Earthquakes are common in a small thin country build from seismic and volcanic activity. The very tall Andes mountain range and the very deep Peru-Chile trench off the coast is where two tectonic plates regularly clash and the 1960 tremor registered 9.5 on the richter scale indicates how much stress lies under Chile. Also the coastline at high risk for tsunamis or tidal waves following earthquakes in the seafloor. The country's younger and modern structures are built to withstand major earthquakes alike those in Japan and California, U.S. However, the Chilean government needs more money and disaster planning to reduce death tolls and injuries. Not only quakes and tidal waves, Chile has many long droughts and winter rains caused floods by the el Nino effect. Interesting enough is Chile has a climate similar to the west coast, U.S. and the Central valleys are generally a "mediterranean" climatic zone, while the southernmost areas have a climate like the pacific northwest U.S. and southern Alaska. Chile has extremes in nature and climate, but the country manage to grow and develop to what it is. Economic profiles in seismic-active countries: Japan and California speak of great agricultural production and high population growth. Same goes for Chile, but economically small and volatile like the earth as Chile, like Japan and California lies in the "ring of fire". Farmlands and cities were enriched by the kind of fertile terrain and mountain runoff. Chile is thankful for the topography as a result by earthquakes, but its' people should learn how to prepare and be safe. --Mike D 26 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great History Article

Im amazed on how acurate it is regarding the events before and after september 11, 1973.

On the events of the Chilean revolt of 1810, it could use a little work. Regarding Bernardo O'Higgins, he was part of an obscure brothehood called "The Lautarian Lodge", from wich San Martin was also a member (along with Bolivar, Pueyrredon and many more who were in power). Although the Lautarian Lodge is responsable for the independence of most of latin america, is also responsable for the murder of several other revolutioneers who also wanted the independence of Chile, such as Jose Miguel Carrera and Manuel Rodriguez, both of them national heros, but assasinated by the Lodge once the lodge was in power(something that rarely shows up in history books). The Lodge lost all its power once the anarchy was over (around 1933). To this very day, Carrerinos and O'higginistas still debate over who was the real father of the country (to a lesser degree from what it was back in 1813). Some say Carrera, mainly because he revolted and created the first goverment with the help of his brothers Juan Jose & Luis and his friend Manuel Rodriguez, some say O'Higgins because he defeated the spaniards with the help of general San Martin (that is, the Lautarian Lodge). To the communists in Chile, Manuel Rodriguez is a figure of respect, as he was a true revolutionary. But what i can say, is that there are 3 fathers of the country: the brave Brigadier O'Higgins, the magnificent General Carrera and the audacious Commander Rodriguez.

I on the contrary am amazed at how biased this article is. Allende is painted as a saint and nothing is said about the famine and chaos that his destruction of property rights brought the country.

[edit] Zaldívar picture

I forgot to put it in the summary, but there is no reason to have a picture of Andrés Zaldívar. He even isn't mentioned on the article. There is a lot of more important and relevants politicians in the history. And if you want to put a picture of a senator it must be Gabriel valdes with the legend "Gabriel Valdes. He was the first parlament president after the Pinochet' regime".

Addition: Zaldívar is not even a senator anymore, he was defeated on the recent elections and will be removed from his charge next year. Never forget that he was one of the worst adversaries to Allende helping the USA to create the caos that make it possible for Pinochet to initiate the military coup in 1973.

Zaldivar was later exiled by Pinochet, btw

[edit] President Elect

The "President Elect" is usually not a leader of any kind (and is indeed an ordinary citizen not subject to immunity, for example) until she assumes power. Please feel free to restore if Chile's constitution states differently but we shouldn't consider somebody a leader until he/she swears in and assumes his/her rightful post. Needless to say, this post is not intended to be neither an endorsment nor criticism of Ms. Bachelet's political ideals or anything of the sort. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree, we can change it in March. --RapaNui 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deal. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics section

Well I don't know why you keep removing my post. All I did was correct what the page said about Chile to what the CIA world fact book says. (24.60.161.63 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Maybe you should leave out a web link to the CIA world fact book. For example, I found it and will place the web link here for the wikipedia editors. CIA - The World Factbook -- Chile : population + 207.200.116.138 08:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody continues to rearrange the Demographics section, perhaps to serve his/her personal bias without actual doing any research. There are generally few unmixed indigenous persons in Chile, but the mestizo population was also recounted with a new statistic. Where did the statistic come from and why it was not fully stated? Please trace back your steps for your information and whoever deleted the origins of colonial Chile was unkind to do so. There is a paragraph from the encyclopedia britannica that clearly said the majority of settlers came out of Andalusia, followed by Asturia and Galicia. The Basque provinces supplied more settlers in the 1700's as farmers and herders, and some Portuguese fishermen in the 1800's. The number of German immigrants at 7,000 was deleted for some reason, but it gave a reasonable explanation on why Chile wasn't entirely "Europeanized" or there wouldn't be a cultural mestizo majority. The article didn't tell of a small settlement pattern of Patagonia, where it was developed by immigrants: Croatians, Danes, Greeks and Scots, as examples, arrived in the late 1800's/early 1900s. The majority are Chilean, yet many residents of Patagonia have non-Spanish surnames + 207.200.116.138 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army

La Escuela de Fuerzas Especiales y Paracaidistas del Ejercito Chileno incluye dentro de sus especialidades la de "Salto libre militar avanzado" que incluye saltos a gran altura, sobre 25.000 pies, con apertura inmediata (HAHO) y con apertura baja (HALO), por lo que es un error señalar que las fuerzas especiales chilenas no cuentan con entrenamiento HALO. Marco.

I'll translate that as good as I can: The Chilean Army's School of Special Forces and Parachutists includes within of their specialties of the "Advanced military free jump" which includes jumps from great hight, over 25 thousands feet, with immediate opening (HAHO) and with low opening (HALO), for which is an error to signal that the Chilean specialized forces don't count with HALO training. Eduardo

[edit] About the politico-admistrative section in the Chile article

I am delete few minutes ago, the Administrative map of Chile in the Poltico-administrative section in the Chile article because it is too long to fit the picture of administrative map of Chile. Thanks.Joseph Solis (Talk) 09:38 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

ʄ (voiced palatal implosive) can't be the right symbol, can it? I think it should be simply [tʃile]. —Keenan Pepper 04:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you are VERY right. Corrected. José San Martin 11:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Pinochet?

Pinochet, despite what anyone thinks of him, has played a very important role in contemporary Chilean history which is why I am wondering why his picture is not in the article. Maybe put the one of him with Allende to replace the Allende one thereby hitting two birds with one stone.--Jersey Devil 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you that his picture is not shown because of what people think of him. I do think his picture is irrelevant and can be readily found anywhere on the internet. Andy f 90 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not many people heard of Pinochet back when he ruled the country, but his name became notorious in the global news scene in his 1998 arrest in London, England for crimes against humanity (I believe he ordered the murder of 2 Spanish agents in Chile during the 1970s). The unelected military regime was first supported when he brought stability, but suspended human rights and up to 10,000 people killed in executions and prison camps, mostly political dissidents or part of a "left-wing" conspiracy. According to Pinochet, any one who opposed him should be punished and communists whom worked for Allende were the first ones. It's possible in the 1973 coup and air bombing of the capital, Allende was a fatality instead of a "suicide" reported by the press. Not only most Chileans began to dislike him, Pinochet was protested in Europe and the Americas as he faces human rights or military tribunals in an old age (in his late '80s) and was declared unfit for trial. I feel he don't deserve a picture in the Chile article, because some people in Chile and worldwide may dislike placing a photo may patronize him. Pinochet is increasingly compared to other infamous dictators (Peron, Castro, Hitler, stalin, saddam, Mussolini, pol pot, idi Amin) and his affiliation with the U.S. government has brought controversy in how influential U.S. foreign policy has effected the "third world". --Mike D 26 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say I dissagree, and as Jersey Devil said, despite what ever each person thinks or belive about Allende and Pinochet, both were presidents, and both are equally hated by Chile for various reasons.

[edit] Education in Chile.

The article states:

Although labelled as "public" education system. the public education is not run y the state, but by the Municipalities [...]'

It seems to me that definition a bit confusing. Municipalities are local governments, so they are in fact a manifestation of the state. Thus education run by the Municipalities is public and not private one, even when it is not directly controlled by the central administration. To provide a more comprehensive definition about this topic, i think the article should also differentiate between school's administration (run by the local governments) and educational policies (run by the central level).

I also consider that the following statement is a bit POV and general:

In a country with one of the worst income distribution in Latin America and big cities oftenly divided in several comunas, among socioeconomic lines, poor comunas has to deliver education to poor students, usually with low standards and high number of beneficiaries; rich district are well funded and manage little number of students since many parents choose the private education system.

In Chilean big cities such as Santiago, Concepción and Valparaiso, school of wealthy and big communes recognised by their quality standards (very few I admit) uses to receive students from other communes.

baloo_rch 16:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

well about the first issue (the public/private calification), well you´re right. Comunas are indeed public-law institutions. What I intented to say was to point at that before 1982, public education was, actually, State-run, and later on transfered to municipal sphere...

On the second topic, you´re right again, rich comunas receive talented students from poor district, the point is the this number is small, and this is a in part because high results in national test make them candidates for further national-level funding. Any way in my opinion the system itself is not affected, this are secundary phenomenona...

One more thing about this topic: the section continous to be vandalized by this cieloestrellado guy, who just erasure the whole topic not giving any reason for...not too encyclopedic to me

User:nandodick

That's the risk of habing an open "edit this" kind of encyvlopedia, people can vandalize if they have different views or if they ...just feel like it

Eduardo

Who keeps changing or deleting the education segment? Is the government behind this or a few Chileans possibly offended by the facts? The historical influence of European socialism in Chile has brought progress in public education, as well provides state subsizided health care and social security programs for retired workers are among the world's oldest in effect.

In a socialist system and I don't mean communist or what we have in the U.S., the emphasis on creating a "classless" society through economic reform and to provide a sense of protection or assistance for the poor has been a top priority in Chilean history. If the government really fought hard to ease the pain of poverty, Chile won't have 1 out of 4 citizens in low income levels.

The decrease of people in poverty is indeed an achievement rarely found in Latin America, but Chile admittedly is socioeconomically divided in one half in poverty and the other in a middle class, though many live alike Americans and western Europeans. Only a small elite controls the entire wealth of the country, but unsurprisingly this is true in every country.

The rural or less populated areas has changed little, despite mining towns and villages in the Atacama has a workers beneficary system and mainly are unionized than their neighbors, Bolivia or Peru. But the Chilean economy in urban centers was so stable and impressive growth rates, you find Wal-Marts, Home Depots, Ford auto dealerships and Microsoft computer stores.

The sense of nationalism is strong in Chile as some citizens boost of their land's "great" facts, includes their territories in easter Island and a slice of Antarctica disputed with Argentina and Britain since the early 1900's. These are accomplishments for a small country with access to the sea and considering the country geographically faces the Antarctic peninsula.

Santiago is indeed an enclave of progress and prosperity, home to the upper classes mainly of European racial origin and Chileans have sayings for their largest city: "Santiago no es Chile". Another popular saying for why the Chileans, long isolated from the developed world, manage to created a land with a high development index: "somos Chilenos, somos diferentes".--Mike D 26 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for information on gun laws

Does anyone know about the legal and practical status of gun ownership laws in Chile for both native citizens and foreigners/naturalized citizens? I've searched all over, and I've seen mention of Chile being involved in some south american organization which attempts to restrict gun ownership, but I can't find any details. Thanks. Two-Bit Sprite 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gun ownership in Chile is restricted: Only "normal" types of guns are allowed for private ownership and it is required to be specifically authorized to have an arm. There is a record of firearms, and having a gun outside this record is illegal. It is also illegal to buy munition if you don't have legally registered gun or buy munition that doesn't belong to the registered gun. Of course, to carry a gun in public spaces is forbidden unless you are a police or a member of the armed forces.

Besides that, gun ownership is highly discouraged.

baloo_rch 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile: demographics , Article repeats itself

The last three paragraphs has been written twice, thus are duplicates. This is called a "redundant" article, so I recommend to delete the second time they were written. Also to edit that in the 1970's, half the Chilean refugee population lived in Europe and the rest lived in Argentina. The current new population figure as of 2005 that nearly half (68,000 out of 140,000) of Chileans live in the U.S. and Argentina has dropped to a third (35,000). + 207.200.116.138 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rearrangement of the article (directed to the wikipedian who read this above), since it makes no sense. The previous quote of where most overseas Chileans are is outdated, but Argentina is next door for those who went to exile. There are significant communities in Europe (not in order: Spain, France, Italy and Germany), but it appears only Sweden was listed. + 207.200.116.138 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Spanish Speaking Countries

Hi i saw that there was'nt Chile in the Category:Spanish Speaking Countries. i tried to add it by editig but in the edit page there was nothing but Category:Spanish Speaking Countries. Felix Portier 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Felix PortierFelix Portier 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's because there is no such category. Instead I changed the link to a similar one.

[edit] Miracle of Chile

Wikipedia has another article, Miracle of Chile on the recent development in democracy and the economy in Chile. The sudden shift in the country's living standard in the period of the late 1980's to the early 2000's made global headlines. A mixture of free-enterprise economics and the return of Chile's democratic tradition after 16 years of military rule, provided what the country needs to prosper and improve itself. However, the number of poor Chileans range from 15 to 40 percent and an economically thriving country with a large underclass can be potentially bring on political problems. I hope Chile is able to drive up economic growth while to bring down poverty. --207.200.116.138 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alejandrina Cox incident

Hi, could any experts on Chile take time to have a look at this article. It needs a lot of work or it will be deleted. Thankyou :) - Jack (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirected: History of Socialism under Pinochet

According to the article, current president Michelle Bachelet was in exile in the 1970's and a member of the East German Socialist Youth, in the time when Europe had 'socialist youth' groups when they were active. The majority of Chilean exiles went to Europe (Britain, France, [west] Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain), but pro-Allende activists went to the USSR, East Germany, China and Cuba to protest against an U.S.-allied Pinochet regime.

In 1977, US pres. Jimmy Carter demanded the Pinochet regime to improve their poor human rights record and as a consequential action, the U.S. cut arms supplies and military aid to Chile among other countries' governments known to committed human rights abuses. For 12 years, Chile wasn't a full-fledged friend to U.S. diplomacy against Pinochet, the US CIA had an open role on installing him and the army to power. Chile isn't the only country with a mixed (pro-anti) view of America and its policies.

Today, the drive for capitalism or a "mixed economy" partially socialist in nature, is considerably a way for Chile to economically grow and improve. Right now, American tourists flock to Chile and U.S. business deals made Chile look tempting to make money, will there be Chileans loathe or dislike America/the U.S.? I love to visit there one of these days as it reminds me of California or the west coast, where I happen to live. There are similarities between here and Chile in climate and terrain.

Also the wikipedia article stated half the overseas Chilean population is in in Argentina) so it's not an error to say Europe used to, nor the US holds 2nd place in the current statistic. Emigration from Chile has slowed down, whenever the national economy is good and restoration of civilian rule, makes Chileans less eager to leave. May there be political stability at this time under Pres. Bachelet, a moderate socialist. + 207.200.116.197 redirected by 207.200.116.138 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the term "American" on here

You could suggest to say "the Western Hemisphere" or the "Americas" North and South. Then it won't be a problem. Many people tend to forget Brazil is Latin American, but not Spanish when it comes to this country's cultural origin is Portuguese. Like Chile, Brazil has a high development index and the issues on preserving democracy, fighting poverty and environmental protection. In most Latin American countries, Americans (from the U.S.) are diplomatically called "NorteAmericanos" as they are "Centro-, Suda- or Latino-Americanos". +207.200.116.138 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and content verifiability

Dear User talk:Khoikhoi, and all other interested parties on this discussion page.

I can't believe what a joke it has become at the article Chile. And by the way, I'd like to "thank you" (laugh) for your unjustafiably blocking me (yes, unjustafied according to wikipedia policy) for 31 hours for my having to revert Antarcticwik's vandalism. I'm still waiting for an apology, or maybe you could redeem that action by this time actually helping out appropriately.

I want to clearly express to you, that the problems at Chile, and Latin America, and Andalusia, and Quechua, and Southern Cone, and all the other articles Antarcticwik or any of his IP's and/or sockppuppets have eddited, are not content disputes, as you have suggested. As for the Chile article, Antarcticwik hasn't engaged in discussion nor is his actions based on a dispute, he merely deletes all sources and text, mainly in the demographics and economics section. And he has reverted yet again. When will it stop!

I just want you to see the vandalism that his edits do to the page:

From:

" ...fell from 46% in 1987 to around 18.8% as procclaimed by the then president Ricardo Lagos in 2005[3] Critics in Chile, however, argue true poverty numbers are considerably higher than officially published figures.[4] In 2006, according to statistics released by Chile's CAS Informática, around 58% of Chileans lived near or below poverty levels; 20.6% in extreme poverty.[5] Despite enjoying a comparatively high GDP compared to most other countries of Latin America, Chile also suffers from one of the most uneven distributions of wealth[6] in the world, ahead only of Brazil in the Latin American region and lagging behind even of most developing sub-Saharan African nations. Chile's top 10 richest percentile possesses 90 percent of the country's wealth. On the national level, 6.2% of the population belonged to "Grupo ABC1" upper economic bracket, 15% belonged to "Grupo C2" middle economic bracket, 21% to "Grupo C3" lower middle economic bracket, 38% to "Grupo D" lower economic braket, and 20% to "Grupo E" extreme poor economic bracket.[7]"

To:

"...fell from 46% in 1987 to around 18.8% as procclaimed by the then president Ricardo Lagos"

From:

Demographics

Population of Chile from 1950, projected up to 2050 (INE)

Chilean children during the annual Fiestas Patrias, or National Celebrations

Main article: Demographics of Chile

The Spanish conquest of Chile and the subsequent intermarriages between colonial Spanish immigrants and indigenous Amerindian tribes "began a process of racial and cultural mix which gave birth to the Chilean people."[8] The country's population is thus relatively homogeneous, with most being of mestizo[9][10] — mixed Spanish and Amerindian — descent, although in various degrees of admixture. See Population background below.

About 85% of the country's population lives in urban areas, with 40% living in Greater Santiago. Chile's population growth is among the lowest in Latin America, at around 0.97%, it comes third only to Uruguay and Cuba.

Population background

The ethnic composition of Chileans is marked by a socio-genetic gradient where Amerindian admixture typically correlates to social levels. [11][12] Amerindian contribution tends to be strongest in the lower echelons of society, with the middle majority presenting a more balanced degree of both European and Amerindian ancestry, while the upper echelons of society tend to register the lowest degree of Amerindian contribution. Almost the entirety of the population, however, presents a racially mixed origin, and only a small minority can truly be said to be unmixed European or unmixed Amerindian. The unmixed Amerindian population is in fact said to be now extinct.

Nevertheless, based solely on physical appearance, between 5 and 10% of the current population would be classified as Amerindian, some 30% would be classified as white, and the remaining majority, between 60 and 65%, would be the discernably mestizo population that has a certain tendancy towards a slightly greater input on the European side and averages a racial mixture not much lower than the average ratio for Chile's overall population.[13] According to the Program of Human Genetics of the University of Chile, the average ratio of racial mixture for Chile's overall population, calculated by the use of nuclear markers, is approximately 60% European contribution and 40% Amerindian, depending on the socioeconomic level. [14][15] According to Rothhammer (1987/2004), that average ratio stands at 57% European contribution and 43% Amerindian. [16]

Indigenous communities

Recognised indigenous community membership (2002)
Alacalufe	2.622	0,02%	Mapuche	604.349	4,00%
Atacameño	21.015	0,14%	Quechua	6.175	0,04%
Aymara	48.501	0,32%	Rapanui	4.647	0,03%
Colla	3.198	0,02%	Yámana	1.685	0,01%

According to the 1992 Chilean census, a total of 10.5% of the total population declared themselves indigenous, irrespective of whether they currently practiced or spoke a native culture and language; almost one million people (9.7% of the total) declared themselves Mapuche, 0.6% declared to be Aymara, and a 0.2% reported as Rapanui.

At the 2002 census, only indigenous people that still practiced or spoke a native culture and language were surveyed: 4.6% of the population (692,192 people) fit that description; of these, 87.3% declared themselves Mapuche. [17].

Immigration

Relative to its overall population, Chile never experienced any large scale wave of immigrants.[18] Compared to neighbouring Argentina or Uruguay, where European immigration doubled to tripled their existing populations, the total number of immigrants to Chile, both originating from other Latin American countries and all other (mostly European) countries, never surpassed 4% of its total population.[19][20] This is not to say that immigrants were not important to the evolution of Chilean society and the Chilean nation. Small numbers of non-Spanish European immigrants arrived in Chile - mainly to the northern and southern extremities of the country - during the XIX and XX centuries, including English, Irish, Italians, French, and Balkans.[21] In 1848 a small but noteworthy German immigration took place, sponsored by the Chilean government with aims of colonising the southern region. With time, and although undertaken by no more than 7,000 people, that German immigration influenced the cultural composition of the southern provinces of Valdivia, Llanquihue and Osorno. The prevalence of non-Hispanic European surnames among the governing body of modern Chile are a testament to their disproportionate contribution to Chile. Also worth mentioning are the Korean and especially Palestinian communities, the latter being the largest colony of that people outside of the Arab world. The volume of immigrants from neighboring countries to Chile during those same periods was of a similar value.[22]

Currently, immigration from neighboring countries to Chile is greatest, and during the last decade immigration to Chile has doubled to 184,464 people in 2002, originating primarily from Argentina, Bolivia and Peru.

Emigration of Chileans has decreased during the last decade: It is estimated that 857,781 Chileans live abroad, 50.1% of those being in Argentina, 13.3% in the United States, 4.9% in Sweden, and around 2% in Australia, with the rest being scattered in smaller numbers across the globe."

To:

"Demographics

Population of Chile from 1950, projected up to 2050 (INE)

Chile is a relatively homogenous country and most of its population is of predominantly Spanish origin, with varying degrees of native Amerindian admixture, the product of the racial mixture between colonial Spanish immigrants and the native Amerindian tribes. About 85% of its population lives in urban areas, with 40% living in Greater Santiago. Chile's population growth is among the lowest in Latin America, at around 0.97%, it comes third only to Uruguay and Cuba.

Indigenous communities

Those belonging to recognised indigenous communities (2002)
Alacalufe	2.622	0,02%	Mapuche	604.349	4,00%
Atacameño	21.015	0,14%	Quechua	6.175	0,04%
Aymara	48.501	0,32%	Rapanui	4.647	0,03%
Colla	3.198	0,02%	Yámana	1.685	0,01%

According to the 1992 Chilean census, a total of 10.5% of the total population declared themselves indigenous, irrespective of whether they currently practiced or spoke a native culture and language; almost one million people (9.7% of the total) declared themselves Mapuche, 0.6% declared to be Aymara, and a 0.2% reported as Rapanui.[23]

At the 2002 census, only indigenous people that still practiced or spoke a native culture and language were surveyed: 4.6% of the population (692,192 people) fit that description; of these, 87.3% declared themselves Mapuche.[24]

Chilean children during the annual Fiestas Patrias, or National Celebrations

Immigration

Non-Spanish European immigrants arrived in Chile - mainly to the northern and southern extremities of the country - during the XIX and XX centuries, including English, Irish, Italians, French, and the Balkans. Smaller waves of Danes, Dutch, Portugese, Romanians, and Greeks arrived as well. In 1848 a small but noteworthy German immigration took place, sponsored by the Chilean government with aims of colonising the southern region. The German/Swiss immigration influenced the cultural composition of the southern provinces of Valdivia, Llanquihue and Osorno. The prevalence of German, French, Italian, English and Yugoslavian surnames among the governing body of modern Chile are a testament to their contribution to Chile. Also worth mentioning are the Korean, Japanese, and especially Palestinian communities, the latter being the largest colony of that people outside of the Arab world. The volume of immigrants from neighboring countries to Chile during those same periods was of a similar value. Chilean ranchers and farmers settled vast expenses of Mexico in the early 1800's, while thousands of miners from Chile and Peru emigrated to California in the 1850's during the gold rush.^{[citation needed]} Currently, immigration from neighboring countries to Chile is greatest, and during the last decade immigration to Chile has doubled to 184,464 people in 2002, originating primarily from Argentina, Bolivia and Peru.

Emigration of Chileans has decreased during the last decade: It is estimated that 857,781 Chileans live abroad, 50.1% of those being in Argentina, 13.3% in the United States, 4.9% in Sweden, and around 2% in Australia, with the rest being scattered in smaller numbers accross the globe."

Note that every single source and reference, all from Chilean sources, including the Chilean Census, Chilean Embassy, University of Chile, other Chilean university's website, Chilean science genetic magazine, Migration Statistics website, etc. etc. etc. have been deleted with text and all, including a whole subsectio, and whatever text he has kept, he changes the figures to his own unsourced ones. The format of the sections he vandalises are also un-wikified in the process, with all hyperlinks removed. And then he has the audacity to come to you and tell you to block ME again! I'm surprised that you didn't, seeing that you had already misued that admin privalege overme once before in spite of what was obviously going on at Chile and who the vandal was.

CieloEstrellado has countless times resotred the info box whose figures keep being affected by the reverts, including the deletion of the national motto. The entire layout of the article, positioning of pictures (one ontop of another, poking into sections and text, and horrendous paragraphing and punctuation horrors throughout, put simply, the overall structure of the article is destroyed by him. Just compare them; Antarcticwik and normal edit

I see that you have only now have had to deal with him/her, and apparently a sockpupet of his/hers, which he hilariously insinuated was mine. Please! By the way, have you noticed they both, not just one of them, edited each others pages? (by Antarcticwiki at Chileuropride's, by Chileuropride at Antarcticwik's)

As I have said before, and will say again, this is blatant vandalism, and NOT a content dispute or edit war. Other users have tried to keep up with his constant reverts to his mutilated unwikified edition. He has refused to engage in dialog, and I have indeed posted to his user page but only to recieve no reply. As you are probably aware, the only pearls (in Spanish in Spanish) I have recieved from him were three personal attacks full of racism to every human ethnic/racial group immaginable other than Europeans, even Spaniards were attacked as filthy african, arab, semites (ie, Jews). He even said whatever "minor" (according to him) Amerindian admixture in Chileans is "compensated" (a word he used) with "real European" German blood (as he himself put it), or so he has made himself believe. Please, lets not even get into the proportion of non-Spanish immigrants that ever made it to Chile (never surpassing 4% of its population, only half of which were Europeans with the other half being other Latin Americans, and which all sources back up including every single Chilean source, and which btw is also text and sources that he deletes) or how "minor" the average Amerindian admixture in Chileans actually is (ie. between 40 and 43%) that is supposedly "compensated" with German blood. He has even tried to encourage others to join in his "MANO DURA" ("Heavy Hand") approach, as he so called it (in Spanish). Will you now do something to resolve the problem with him and the situation he has created? I think more than enough has been purpetrated to justify all his IP's and main account to be permanently blocked. Al-Andalus 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You broke 3RR; yes, AntarcticWik is going about things the wrong way, but the very reason that 3RR is in place is to stop content disputes. His changes were not vandalism; they were a content dispute. Even the administrators agreed on this one. 3RR only applies to obvious vandalism. I realize you don't much care for his changes, but no matter how much this is true, it's not obvious vandalism, whether you say it is or not. He has also been blocked for 3RR; now, I encourage you to work out your differences on the talk page; both of you; he is certainly not the only person disagreeing with you, and you could certainly work it out with the others. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Several and deep changes in revision 87135392

I had no time to review the changes, but it would be good if someone can please pay attention to this before more changes are made to the article.

The changes made in this revision-by a non-registered user-include deletion of statistics and other important parts of the article. I could also say I saw some weasel words... --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language of the Mapuche

Regarding this post about the official language: I've looked briefly, and I can't find any sources which say that Mapudungun (the language of the Mapuche) is an official language of Chile. In fact, the Wikipedia page on it says it's the official language of, and I quote, "none." I'm wary of the claim an anon user (4.239.114.37) just added to this article that it's one of the official languages of the country. --Whimemsz 00:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

As far i know (as Chilean) the only official language is Spanish. (i've never see any official document in mapadungun). In fact, i would be not surprised at all if German language is more widely speaken in Chile as mapadungun language : southern Chile's german immigrants preserved it language and it is not rare to hear it in Osorno or Puerto Montt. On their side most urban mapuche didn't traspassed the language to their children in order to avoid social discrimination and only in the last years emerged a movement in order to re-value mapuche traditions among the urban descendants. Baloo rch 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if not recognized, it is a semi-official language. In court and legal documents they are required to provide translations in to the Mapuche language for Mapuche people. Also under various international laws, that Chile is a part of, there is some official recognition and it is part of education in various regions of Chile.

• • That doesnt make it an official language, the united states traslates documents into thousands of langauges from court documents to driving tests to voting materials to the GED, this does not make fijian spanish arabic etc official. Mapudungun is however the official language of the mapuche people and its institutions.Qrc2006 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

The revert warring on this page is starting to get to me. People are just reverting back to previous versions of a page, and any intermediate changes are being thrown out. I'm not sure that the page wouldn't be better off full-protected; I'm inclined to request this protection, which will almost certainly be granted, if you guys can't work this out on the talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Jespinos 19:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that no one decided to pay attention, so I'm now going to report you both for breaking 3RR. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile with a 58% of Poverty???

A 58% POVERTY? That Percentage is absolutely false, and is ILLOGICAL with a HDI OF 0.859 please they eliminate that information. Antarcticwik 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Antarctic. I checked the source - the 58% comes from adding together the "lower" (38%) and "extremely poor" (20%) classes. But the source itself specifically defines poverty as only the latter of the two classes, which would put it at 20%. Once the article is unblocked, I think someone should make this change to 20%. Anyone else disagree? If not, then we can move on to the next of the argued points. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And the article here articulates that too. It doesn't say that 58% is poor, it says 58% is living "near or below poverty ", with the specific poverty figure given thereafter.

We have to be very careful on the way that Chile's national economy is presented, which is indeed a dragon of an economy, being one of the most progressive in Latin America, after Brazil and Mexico. But to go from there to an erred automatic association that this status of the national economy somehow translates to the wealth or poverty levels of the population itself is very troublesome.

The fact is, most Chileans do not have a share to even small crumbs of that delicious economic pie. In the case of Chile, not only does the country have a substancial proportion of the population living in extreme poverty (20%), but those who are not technically poor (38%) are also living in exremely critical financial conditions. What is hardly ever mentioned is that Chile's very very large consumer-crazy population (with this consumerism being the engine of the country's economy, but also mineral exploitation) does not own the money or products they consume. Chile has one of the most obscene consumer debt figures. The perception of an affluence or that most of the country's population has disposable financial means (note I said the population, not the economy, because the economy itself is indeed healthy and progressive) is just that, a perception. The utter majority of Chile's population does not dispose of dispensable income, yet Chile's consumerism hides that fact. It also contributes to its worsoning. Everything being bought by Chileans belongs to credit companies, and the debt already accumulated is titanic and an acute problem, and it just grows by the minute. Chile's vibrant economy can only be used to a certain limit to depict the country as a financial success if most of the country's immensely large consumer population is being powered by credit, and if this represents a population goinf from being in immense debt into an abism of debt. There are articles that deal with this phenomenon in Chile. I will look some up and post some links. Al-Andalus 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could include some of this information, and we could reword it to "58% at a low income level, with a full 40% of those below the poverty line". Providing comparisons to other first world countries like the US may help (the US, not the least of which because this is English wikipedia, but also because it's often used for comparisons in the Western hemisphere). I haven't read the article closely, but the robustness of the economy compared to the rest of Latin America should prob be included too. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I insist, the economy section has nontrue information and its source is of political tendency of left, the left in Chile is opposes to the model of free market and distorts the information. the truth is that the poverty in Chile is of only 18%, and includes in that percentage from 18% a 5% of extreme poverty. Antarcticwik 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, at least one this one, I have agree with Antarctic. 58% is an unfair categorization in this case. I'm sorry I don't agree, but if the information is present, it needs to be restated. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a workable proposition. At the end of the day, the block heleped a bit, cause it forced Antarcticwiki into Talk. Something he has refused to do ever since he began contributing to wikipedia (even though he is still merely stating his already known opinions, still without sources, but it's a start.). Also, this doesn't cover the problem with Antarctikwiki constantly deleting the distribution of wealth info. That still has to be addressed. And also, the demographics section must be sort out once and for all. There is the problem with the comming to terms with the word "mestizo" that two users are currently having. Also, for neutrality, I've taken the liberty of exactly quoting what the Chilean gtovernment itself has to say in regards to the origin of the modern Chilean people, but it keeps being reverted. (Please visit CieloEstrellado's Talk page for a background to that issue) tAnd also needing urgent attention is the constant removal of the propensity of non-Spanish european migration to Chile throught it's history. The small level which it was keeps being removed and it makes the article suggest it was somewhat comparable to Argnetina, far removed from reality as the comparison would be. Al-Andalus 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediens please please do not support Al Andalus on this. The word Mestizo is never used in the hispanic world to describe people who are predominantly European as is the case for most Chileans. Firstly, as you may know, in Latin America it is used for those who are predominantly amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America). Secondly, there is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry. There is no sense of common belonging shared exclusively by people with amerindian ancestry which excludes people who dont have this ancestry. This is a vital characteristic of an ethnic group. The word mestizo is pejorative in our language and should be used as little as possible. Ill give you an example. When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied. Finally, in our cultural community, Latinness, Spanishness (or if you want to use racial terms "whiteness") is an expansive concept which does not exclude people placind then in a different ethnic group on the basis of their blood being "tainted" as happens in the Anglo Saxon world. Although, I agree that that in certain countries where racial divisions have been stronger due to a much larger Amerindian community, (such as Peru or Guatemala or Mexico)this leads to implications regarding identity and ethnicity.. Antarcticwik 04:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is so frustrating! How can there honestly be any kind of progressive dialogue that will lead to a resolution to the current stagnant situation when the other side of the debated won't actively participate? That whole last post by Antarctictik was a copy and paste job from here posted by User:Burgas00 half a year ago. The post had already been refuted back then. But I see we have to go over it again and again.

Why do the same dead and deliberately false statements keep comming up time after time as points of argument to this issue long after they have been refuted and debunked? Because their position is one that simply cannot be academically argued or backed up. The post which I made to CieloEstrellado was deleted by him from his talk page because he cannot reply to it. There is nothing that they can make their arguments stand on. So the question now is, why do they continue to persist on maintaining that POV in the article when it is obviously an unsustainable fallacy? The more pressing question is also, why is there no one else comming to the defence of verifiable content and NPOV on this article?

Before I head off for today, I would like to just briefly touch on unsustainable points raise by the copied post made by Antarcticwik (which, again, has already been debunked).

1st argument: The word Mestizo is never used in the hispanic world to describe people who are predominantly European as is the case for most Chileans.

*Wrong. The word "mestizo" in the Hispanic world is used for anyone of apparent mixed ancestry, whether or not it is exactly in a ratio of 50:50 (which was the colonial definition). Of every 100 Chileans, around 60-65 fall into that category, around 30 would be predominantly European (the word is used in the sense of over 75% European, not on an average of 57% or lower, which still constitutes obvious mixture) and would be the definably "white" population, and between 5-10 would fall into a category where they have too much Amerindian ancestry, that they are physically Amerindian (and in Chile, this segment is the culturally Amerindian population).

2nd argument: In Latin America [mestizo] is used for those who are predominantly Amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America).

*Wrong. As already pointed above. In Latin America the term is used for those of apparent mixed ancestry. Those who are predominantly Amerindian or European are identified as such. In Chile's case, this population is respectively 5-10% predominantly Amerindian (and classed as such) and 30 predominantly European (and classed as such). And yes, it applies to Mexico (although 30% there is either Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian and classed as such). As for the rest of Central America, most is also mestizo, but Guatemala has it's majority (over 55%) composed of Amerindians of persons predominantly Amerindian. Mestizos of visibly mixed appearance (or "Ladinos" in the local language) including a tiny "white" population (less than2%) make up the rest.

3rd argument: There is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry.

*It is true that there is no defined culturally defined "mestizo" group in Chile that all mestizos belong to and identify with. But it is also true that there is no culturally defined "White" group in Chile that all "whites" belong and identify with. As far as the Chilean government is concerned, and this has been the policy for quite some time, there are only two distinguishable cultural groups in Chile: the indigenous and "non-indigenous". However, among the non-indigenous cultural group, there is great genetic variety and it far from homogenous. It is instead a concept of nationality, or "Chilenidad", which loosely translates as "Chileanness" in English. It is not defined as any specific cultural manifestation, neither mestizo nor European, it is simply "Chilean". The non-indigenous group is not defined by genetic heritage, it includes anyone not culturally Amerindian, and as most of the population of Chile is of apparent mixed ancestry (i.e. mestizo who show their mixture), and the non-indigenous group is composed primarily of mestizos (which account for around 60-65% of the total population. The predominantly European population which is classed as "white" comprises the rest of the "non-indigenous" (30% of the total population), and the smaller Asian and other groups represent the rest of the "non-indigenous". As far as culture goes, Chile is VERY homogenous, however this doesn't factor into the subject of racially defined groups in Chile, whether or not there is a common sense of "group". As for the comment of "Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry", if we mean the average, well the average for Chileans as a whole is 57% European (that is not "predominantly"). If you're talking about enough European ancestry to the point where the mixture no longer show physically, then that segment is 30% of the entire population.

4th argument: The word mestizo is pejorative in [the Spanish] language and should be used as little as possible

*This is simply untrue. It is a blatant fallacy. That the term "mestizo" to some individuals may represent a personal attack to their individual Europeanness, and thus see it as pejorative (whether they actually are or aren't European, coz some are often times also mestizos) does not make the word mestizo itself pejorative. The word in the Spanish language has no other connotation other than what it is defined by, that it means someone of mixed racial heritage. White nationalist who are opposed to race-mixing and the products of it, however, do hold the term to be pejorative. That minority definition held by a sub-group for their own reasons is not then the definition and pejorative status to be applied to an entire language. Just because some racist anti-Semites white Nationalist also use the word "Jew" as a pejorative among themselves, does that make it a pejorative word in the English language as a whole? I DON'T THINK SO!

Besides this, most countries in Latin America are explicitly defined as Mestizo country's by government pronouncements. The Mexican nation is a prime example. So let the notion that the term is a "rude word" in any way be chucked out the window once and for all. Any argument to the contrary has an obvious race-based nationalistic agenda attached to it.

5th argument: When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied.

*Although this related to the latter debunked point of argument, i will also address it just for the fun of it. The only reason the title was changed from "Harry Potter y el Príncipe Mestizo" to "Harry Potter y el misterio del Príncipe" was because using the word "mestizo" in the Spanish title gave connotations that the prince spoken of was of a specific "European/Amerindian" mix. Someone in PR did not do his homework and didn't research that mestizo in Spanish is not a generic word for "mixed" and refers to a specific mixture. The title would also have been changed if it had been "mulato" instead of mestizo. This was not the case of the character. “Mulato” specifically means a European/black African mix. Are we going to suggest it also has pejorative connotation? Mulata in the Spanish language is even a term of endearment, and in countries like Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the Dominican Republic may be used as a term for beauty, even on people who aren't mulattos.

I could go on, but that's all for today. I'll be back when I see fair dinkum participation from the other side of the debate. Till then this is a waste of time, and they are making it very clear that their position is nothing than an unsustainable POV. Al-Andalus 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that User:CieloEstrellado cannot come to replying to the post on his talk page, and has deleted it once again, I will post it here. This issue was made an issue by his and Antarticwik's constant deletion and POV, so it is expected that they reply & present a referenced defence to their position. If not, that they desist from it (at least as far as imposing the POV on this article is concerened).

The Post to CieloEstrellado:

I really don't know from what angle your argument is comming from, beacuase it seems to change to a different unsubstanciated reasons every time you try to remove the word "mestizo".
At first you alleged that the term had connotations of insult in Chile. Well I know that this is simply not true. So i've asked you to substanciate the claim. Additionally, as I have previously pointed out to you, it is ALL SOURCES from Chile, be it from the government, public or private educational institutions, universities, government and public agencies, that refer to the mixed majority population of Chile as "mestizo".
If you are now trying to base your edits on the argument that mestizo only applies to perfect mixes, then no country would be defined as such. No mestizo today, apart from first generation mixes, have a perfect ratio of 50:50. You know this quite well.
I've already conceded that you remove the background genetic information from the main article, because as you have said, it is a bit too detailed. So now that's in the main demographics article. However, if you push to remove the term "mestizo" as well, then that can only lead to the assumption that there is an agenda behind your motives, although I wouldn't go as far as comparing you to the "anti-anythin-which-is-not-white" Antarcticwik.
It's concerning that your edit continuously inserts "of predominantly Spanish origin, with varying degrees of native Amerindian admixture" when that predominance spoken of is true only when other factors come into play, such as sociogenetic factors. Not all have predominant Spanish ancestry, most have it in about equal amounts, although SLIGHTLY more on the European side, but most certainly not predominantly to merit the use of that qualifying word. But again I have to point out that it is you that removed the content discussing those factors from the main article. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to state "mestizo", then you can't say predominantly without a background in same article on the factors that contributes to a predominance in certain individuals (mostly the 30% which is deemed white). It's simply misleading.
Also, to try to appease all sides, I have taken the liberty at quoting the Chilean government own wording on the population of Chile.

The Spanish conquest of Chile and the subsequent intermarriages between colonial Spanish immigrants and indigenous Amerindian tribes "began a process of racial and cultural mix which gave birth to the Chilean people."[25] The country's population is thus relatively homogeneous, with most being of mestizo[26][27] descent, although in various degrees of admixture. See main article for detailed population background.

But you remove that too. I seems that you, personally, really don't want any part or association with any of Chile's mestizoness. If it really must be acknoweledged, then you push that it be done without the use of the term itself, and with the use of over-emphatic (and in all honesty) wrongly employed adjectives such as "predominatly", and then also pushing to exclude any information discussing that "predominance" and to who and what percentage of the population it actually applies.
If the average ratio of European blood in the average Chilean is 57%, and 43% Amerindian, then it is assumed that without the 30% who are "white", that European average would go down for the remaining population (becomeing more balanced, which by the way, 57:43 almost is in the first place). The average ratio for the 60% of chileans who are both mestizo and look it is lower than that national average (and most likely closet to a 50:50 ratio). To no surprise, that is also true for the 10% Amerindian-looking population as well, where the average drops even further.
The average ratio for the average Mexican is around 56% Amerindian and 43% European (with 1% Black), but take out the 30% of Mexicans which are Amerindian or Amerindian-looking, and that European ratio rises for the rest of the population, but then it also drops when you again take out the 10% of Mexicans which are "white", thereby leaving the 60% of mexicans who are both mestizo and look it at a ratio more likely also closer to 50:50 (becomeing even more balanced, which here too by the way, 43:56:1 almost is in the first place).
I honestly don't understand this resentment of some Latin Americans to come to terms with the ethnic composition of either themselves, or their country in general (even if doesn't apply to that particular individual). And by the way, if you say that Mestizo is a filthy word in Chile, then we should go and tape the mouths of Isabel Allende and other notable Chilean literary figures for using such dirty a word in public. I was reading a newpaper only yesterday, and she happened to refer to Chile as mestizo. Naughty her. Doens't she know that it's a filthy word? She should've used "predominantly-Spanhish-admixed-with-various-degrees-of-Amerindian" as her word of choice instead of "mestizo". Al-Andalus 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, CieloEstrellado seems to only have a problem with the "mestizo" issue. Antarkticwik has this chip and many more which are then taken out throughout the entire article in blankings, deltions of sources and basically mutilating the article. Al-Andalus 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Te respondo en castellano por que tengo la convicción que èsta es tu lengua nativa, y la discuciòn es sobre Chile un país predominantemente español aunque te DUELA Y moleste. Andalus la situación etnica chilena es absolutamente diferente a la de mexico. Lo que SÌ me parece sospechoso, es que en el caso mexicano, un pais evidentemente no occidental, intentas aumentar su factor europeo igualmente con argentina (que si es europeo pero no al 90% como tu dices ), pero con Chile tienes una obsesión enfermisa con aumentar su factor indigena. Ademas tus contribuciones son casi todas relacionadas con Chile, y siempre perjudicando sus estadisticas economicas, sociales o etnicas. inclusive tu obsesion te MOTIVÓ a inventar a chileuropide, para perjudicarme y caricaturizarme ante la comunidad de wikipedia, lo que habla muy mal de tÍ, de tus valores, y de tu país, el que te niegas a identificar, por miedo a ser acusado de no objetivo. Chile es un pais muy exitoso que provoca envidia y odiosidad en paises latinoamericanos que tienen muchos problemas,como probablemente es el tuyo. ¿ SI TUS POSTEOS fuesen HONESTOS, OBJETIVOS Y ALTRUISTAS, pOR QUE NO IDENTIFICAS TU ORIGEN COMO TODOS LOS QUE HACEMOS APORTES HONESTOS AL WIKIPEDIA? y te escondes en las sombras del anonimato???. Ademas las fuentes que utilizas son fuertemente cuestionadas como el estudio sobre reacción a ciertos medicamentos sumamente cuestionado en Chile, por su falta de representatividad ya que utilizo una pequeña muestra de personas marginadas socialmente y que en Chile son personas predominanetemenete indigenas pero muy europeizados culturalmente por la influencia de la mayoria de la población que es predominantemente caucasica tal como lo establecen diversas publicaciones como èsta[[28]] Y te insisto ES IMPOSIBLE CAMBIAR LA REALIDAD A TRAVES DE WIKIPEDIA. eN CONSECUENCIA DEJA DE VANDALIZAR LOS ARTICULOS SOBRE MI PROSPERO Y HERMOSO PAIS..... AHH Y NO TE AVERGUENCES DEL TUYO, SINO TRABAJA POR SU EXITO PERO CON HONESTIDAD. SALUDOS Antarcticwik 05:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am making an exception and writing in Spanish on this talk page, because one of the major parties does much better in Spanish, and all involved parties seem to speak it (WP:IAR). I apologize if anyone has a problem with this:

Antarctik, yo pienso que responde Andalus en el ingles porque este es el Wikipedia ingles. Pienso que quiere que todo el mundo entienda las discusiones, como es una regla aqui. Pero estoy dispuesto a hacer una excepcion en tu caso (WP:IAR) porque tu dominio del espanol es mejor que tu dominio de ingles (este no es un insulto: yo se cuan dificil es para aprender una lengua extranjera).

Yo tengo unas cosas que decir:

• Por favor, vamos a hablar de la situacion, y como se puede arreglar. Que no tengamos ataques ad hominem (contra la otra persona). No importa quien fue chileeuropride, y no importa quien copio cual frase de una discusion de antes.
• Me parece que hay tres cosas, mas o menos, con que los partido tienen problemas:
• 1) la raza y el mestizaje (?) de Chile
• 2) El por ciento de la gente en pobreza
• 3) El uso de los imagenes.
  • Ya tenemos un acuerdo para #2. Y con toda franqueza, #3: antarctic: necesitas hablar de los cambios de imagenes en la pagina de discusion antes de hacerlos. Pero, si hay problemas con esto, vamos a tratar de eso mas tarde, despues de que la pagina ya no es protegida. Eso nos deja con #1:

Los argumentos:

• "Mestizo" no es una palabra peyorativa. - Yo opino que esto es semi-verdadero, semi-falso. No es nada tan malo como "nigger" en el ingles, pero hay algunos que se ofiendan con la palabra. No veo nada en la pagina Mestizo que me muestra que la palabra es mala. Sin embargo, debemos tener cuidado en el uso de la palabra.
• La definicion de la palabra mestizo: se refiere a la gente que es 90% europea y 10% nativa? 70% europea? 55% europea? Where do we draw the line?, me parece que nos preguntamos. Pero esto es lo importante: no somos nosotros los que decidimos, porque esto constituye en el Original Research (investigacion original) - lo que es especificamente prohibido en el Wikipedia (WP:OR). Hay que usar fuentes externas. Por eso, si alguien puede mostrar una fuente, preferiblemente en el ingles, que habla especificamente en por cientos de la raza chilena (criollo, mestizo, nativo, y black), eso es ideal y deberemos usar esta fuente. Si hay dos fuentes que no estan de acuerdo, podemos fusionar los dos, como he hecho con China en Christianity_by_country. Cuando nos ponemos de acuerdo, despues de eso, podemos hablar del uso de las frases en la pagina.

Gracias; ojala que haya un acuerdo entre los dos lados. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lo peyorativo de la palabra mestizo va a depender del contexto en el cual se use. Si se le usa para tratar de mostrar una inherente inferioridad mestiza, tiene indudablemente una connotación peyorativa. Como es el caso cuando se coloca: "The ethnic composition of Chileans is marked by a socio-genetic gradient where Amerindian admixture typically correlates to social levels" y no se da una explicación de ello (si es que fuera verdadero, lo cual tampoco esta claro). En una de las fuentes que se da se señala:"This social-economic and genetic stratification has traditionally been maintained and is still maintained by a rigid system of marriages and property-inheritance, on top of a social discrimination as negative as rarely seen in the world".[29] Al omitir esto último, las personas que leen el artículo podrían sacar conclusiones erradas sobre los mestizos. Jespinos 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Look Antartcticwik, I'll write in english because this is the english wikipedia. You are blind to the poverty that exists in this country. Even though Chile is heading in the right direction economically, you underestimate the ammount of poverty. Maybe 56% percent doesn't live under the poverty line, but Chileans are unbelievebly in debt. They use their stupid credit cards for absolutely everything and purchase things they don't have the money for. This consummerism hides a little bit the poverty in Chile. I added to this article a statement that had a verifiable source that the top 10 richest percentile of Chile has 90% of the wealth, and I belive this wholeheartedly. A government survey in 2004 revealed that 66.7% of chilean workers earned less than 360,000 pesos (I think this slightly above the poverty line) per month and 30% earned less than 180 thousand. According to a recent survey by the World Bank Chile ranked 116th in wealth distribution out 124 surveyed. That is bad if you ask me. So yes, Chile has a lot of money its just that they don't know how to distribute it fairly. And mind you welive under a socialist government, that has more right wing policies than a lot of right wing governments.

As for the word Mestizo being an insult, i don't think so. In school they even teach you that Chile is neither european nor indigenous they are chileans, something to take pride in. Most people, when asked about their race will tell you thaey are mestizos. Where you live (Puerto Montt) there were a lot more german inmmigrants, which might lead to your perception of Chile being whiter than it really is. You should come up north and you will see its not that way. Chileiceman 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I RESPOND to YOU IN ENGLISH SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND to ME IN CANADA, SINCE YOU ARE CANADIAN EHH, (LOLO) YOUR AFFIRMATIONS ARE MISSED AND SLANTED IDEOLOGICALLY, SINCE the LEFTISTS AS you they try TO DIMINISH OUR EUROPEAN CULTURE LIKE METHOD DE OPOSICIóN TO the WESTERN VALUES LIKE the LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, the freedom, and the ECONOMIC FREEDOM. BUT the TRUTH IS THAT MOST OF the CHILEANS IT IS DESCRIBED of White in the THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [[30]] Antarcticwik 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Por si acaso vivo en Chile y puedo hablar español perfectamente. But since this is the english Wikipedia I will continue to type in english. What you say here doesn't make a lot of sense and I fail to see why you need to type in caps. It makes you look inmature. I am not saying tht Chile isn't progressing economically. It is. And it is at a very fast speed. However it is not yet a developed nation. It is a country still developing. I don't know why you want Chile to be like Europe, it is not at all like Europe. I think it is great for each country to have its own identity. the article you posted said that Chile is not developing culturally as fast as it is economically. But what is to cultural development? Be like western "modern" countries? I don't think there is such a thing (unless your country is full of caniballs or is like many muslim countries, however that is not at all like Chile) Just because Chileans do not live exactly like Euros or North Americans doesn't mean they are bad. Chile is in Latin America, will always be a Latin American country as long as it exists. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As for the mestizo debate. Just because people say they are white doesn't mean it is true. most people probably view themselves as white because they really have nothing in common with the aboriginal people. but technically just about everyone has indiginous blood in them. in the article it stated that more people with higher educations considered themselves to be mestizos. It pobably means most people don't even know they are mestizos. But why are debating about what race chileans are. Who cares? Why is it so important to you for Chile to be considered a predominantly white country? Chileiceman 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you all must learn to indent your posts so it's easier for the reader to distinguish where on post begins and the other ends. Now, Chileiceman, I was gonna make the exact same point you did. While most Chileans in the sample of that Chilean study did identify as white (btw, it's a good thing that Antarctikwik is finally using sources, and Chilean ones at that), as you point out, it does not mean they actually are white, or that they even look it (whatever parameters are used). Whiteness in Chile, and for the rest of Latin America as a whole, is a diferent concept than as we know it in the English-speaking Western world.

This phenomenon of mestizos in Chile identifying as white (and when I say mestizos, I refer only to the 60% population majority that are not only genetically mixed but also show it physically, not to the entire population which includes those who actually look white or amerindian, most of whom are also mixed to some degree) is not new. In fact, wikipedia's Chile article reflected that phenomenon in its previous editions of over a year ago.

"Around 95% of Chileans descend from early Spanish colonists, and although the majority possess Native American ancestry in varying degrees - thus deeming them mestizos - very few Chileans would admit their Native American admixture. People of relatively unmixed Spanish ancestry are not uncommon."[31]

The finding of the study that Antarctiwik quoted are not new. They are old news. Like much of the rest of Latin Americans, Chileans seek to whiten their country and themselves, if only by identity and not by reality. The norm has always to identify the next step up the white ladder. If you are and unmixed Amerindian, then you identify as a predominantly Amerindian mestizo. If you are a mestizo, you identigy as white. And if you are actually white, then you identify as a gringo or as a foreigner to the country of your birth which has also been your family's birth for generations.

As examples, look at Peru with its majority Amerindian populations (45%) that seeks to identify as mestizo as many Amerindians as they can by vitue of cultural assimilation, thereby enlarging their mestizo minorities, which although large (37% to 40%) is still a minority nonetheless, which is sought to be made into a majority. Mexico, with a predominantly mestizo population (60%) which seeks to diminish it's large Amerindian minority from it's 30%, enlarge its mestizo population with them and then skim the top of the mestizo segment to increase its "white" minority from it's 10%. Chile, which is a country with a mestizo majority (60%) seeks to skim the top of this segment and annex them into the "white" population, thereby augmenting that one and decreasing the mestizo one. And Argentina, which although does have a white majority without the aid of increasing or decreasing other groups, with a majority populatio which traces back to Spanisards (whether mixed or unmixed with other European nationalities or to a smaller extentwith Amerindians) still tries to identify as a European country mistakenly trapped in Hispanic America.

The article provied by Anarctiwik does point out that the Chileans with higher educations a more likely to identify as mestizo, and as the article says, the lower the education the less likely mestizos are to acknoweladge their racial condition since this places two negatives points on them rather than just one (ie, mestizo and a low education, rathern than just a low education but at least white). On the other hand, it also state that those with the most basic of education are the most likely to identify as amerindian.

Figures for racial self-identification are useless when it come to the Latin American, including the Chilean, context. If you look carefully, you will notice a trend. It always seems to be that whatever is stated in figures for racial self-classification, half of the self-identified "white" population of any Latin American country (no matter how big that population) should be counted back in as mestizos (because they actually look it also) and whatever the number of the self-identified Amerindian population is, the same number should be deducted from the mestizo population and counted in as Amerindian. Peruvian sources for racial figures by self-identification state only 20% Amerindian and 15% white, but twice as many would be classified Amerindian by apperance and half would actually look white and not just like another mestizo. The same with the current Mexican sources for racial figures by self-identification. Only 12% of Mexicans self-identigy as Amerindian and up to 18% would identigy as white, but twice as many would be classified as Amerindian (30%) by apperance and half would be white by appearance. That latest Chilean sources given by Antarcticwik for racial figures by self-identification state only 27% mestizo and 60% white, but twice as many would be classified as mestizo by apperance (60%) and only half of the self-identified white population would actually be so in appearance. It's the half in and half out equation.

The only veryfible content, discounting self-identification, is that which actually indicates the genetic contribution of the population of chile as given by geneticits. And that information corroborates other non-self-identified information. That is, that the majority of the population looks mixed, whether or not half of these identify as such or not. Al-Andalus 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Andalus, you bring up a very good point; from what I've heard of Latin America, this is true, though perhaps not to as great an extent as people sometimes say (e.g., Bachelet or Pinochet, or the average universitario in Argentina). Can you provide a source for these statements? It's not impossible to say "65% self-identify as white [ref], though many sociologist think this assessment is too high [ref]." Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Who was the person who added the following paragraphs to the article Demographics of Chile? and What was the objective?

• "The ethnic composition of Chileans is marked by a socio-genetic gradient where Amerindian admixture typically correlates to social levels"
• "Although the total number of these European immigrants was relatively small, and they did not achieve much more than to add a non-Spanish element to the upper classes, their presence did transform the country technologically, economically, religiously, and culturally."
• "The prevalence of non-Hispanic European surnames among the governing body of modern Chile are a testament to their disproportionate contribution to Chile."

Jespinos 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that, but I would agree with those statements Chileiceman 01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true for almost all Chileans or other South Americans view themselves an "European" people or classified in the "white" race. It's a similar arguement on other countries articles' talk pages dealt with an identity crisis: Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, France, Germany, Japan, China, Malaysia and South Africa, on whether or not they are "western" countries or a mish-mash of various ethnic and racial populations over the last thousands of years. Latin Americans are of every race known to man, so would a large poroportion of people in the US or North America, and the so-called "white" majorities in Europe and former USSR that extends through Northern Asia. I understand well most anthropologists studied a country's cultural leanings, such as Chile that of being classified as an "Ibero-Latin American" or "Euro-Latino" background despite the majoirty of Chileans have American Indian ancestries (Mapuches, Inca-Quechuas, Aymaras, and a historical migration pattern of Central American [Aztecan/Mayan] and North American [Cherokee/Choctaw] into colonial Chile in the 18th and 19th centuries). I've read the ancestry of Mexican-Californian bandit Joaquin Murrieta was said to possess Chilean from his mother's side, but also was traced to Cherokees, an Anglicized (they were highly immersed by European cultural contact) Native American group from the Southern U.S., but the Spaniards traded Amerindian slaves from one point of New Spain or Brazil into another colony (a Mapuche may as well traveled to Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and if possible, Spain or Hawaii or to the Philippines). The "oro Negro" web site on Afro-Chileans in the Arica province keeps being deleted, regardless of the criteria and hard work to get that web site explains the history of a small groups of Afro-Chileans tells us a few black people are in "white" Chile. 63.3.14.1 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Chile

so that? they eliminated the beautiful images of geography of Chile? Antarcticwik 05:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That changes were probably made in rev. 87135392... if someone'd just pay attention to me... --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The images are important for the understanding of the text Antarcticwik 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your text cannot be understood, with or without pictures. And most of your pictures are randomy placed, disfiugring the aricle's layout. Al-Andalus 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)'

[edit] Unuseful source in references - request removal

The phrase Chile is a relatively homogenous country and most of its population is of predominantly Spanish origin, with

   varying degrees of native Amerindian admixture, the product of the racial mixture between colonial Spanish 
   immigrants and the native Amerindian tribes.

cites two sources numbered [15] and [16] as of rev. 87447680.

The first of these is a PDF document that studies response to drugs in several ethnic groups and does not mention anything relevant to support the phrase above. I request the removal of this source. --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 10:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

<comment removed, see discussion immediatley below> Antarcticwik 04:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What does this has to do with the document I talked about? I believe you should put this issue under a separate topic. --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He already did. It was a copy-and-paste error. I'll remove the comment; don't think he'll mind. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Negrillo, your input would be appreciated in this discussion, as we are having it above. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in link on Colchagua Province page

I'm not interested in getting involved with editing, but I don't see anywhere to report this kind of error. I hope this is the right place.

On the page for Colchagua Province, the link for the town Lolol goes to an article on the blog term "LOL" instead of to information about the town. 66.32.65.229 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know how to add a new topic on this section, that’s why I ask, please, to some wikipedian to do that for me, among whit the proper changes I suggest if you agree whit me.

On “History”, besides Bernardo O´Higgins picture, said: “Intermittent warfare continued until 1817, when an army led by Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile's most renowned patriot, and José de San Martín, hero of the Argentine War of Independence, crossed the Andes into Chile and defeated the royalists”

It’s heavily referenced that the Army of the Andes was “created” and LEAD, by Don Jose de San Martin, even here on wikipedia.

Bernardo O´Higgins, under the command of San Martin, commanded one of the two main columns.

So, “an army led by Bernardo O'Higgins” is wrong.

Thanks, Adrián. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.212.235.67 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Economy

Antarcticwik removed the following:

In 2006, according to statistics released by Chile's CAS Informática, around 58% of Chileans lived near or below poverty levels; 20.6% in extreme poverty.^[1] Despite enjoying a comparatively higher GDP and more robust economy compared to most other countries of Latin America, Chile also suffers from one of the most uneven distributions of wealth in the world, ahead only of Brazil in the Latin American region and lagging behind even of most developing sub-Saharan African nations. Chile's top 10 richest percentile possesses 47 percent of the country's wealth.^[2] In relation to income distribution, some 6.2% of the country populates the upper economic income bracket, 15% the middle bracket, 21% the lower middle, 38% the lower bracket, and 20% the extreme poor.^[1]

However, he didn't provide any explanation in an edit summary or on the talk page. I've re-added it until he can provide his reasons. Khoikhoi 04:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's some considerable tlak about it above under Talk:Chile#Chile_with_a_58.25_of_Poverty.3F.3F.3F Patstuart^talk|edits 05:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the most offensive part of the phrase; if Antarctic has more he disagrees with, he can state which part. -Patstuart^talk|edits 05:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He removed it again... Khoikhoi 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

*Throws up hands* Antarctic, if you are seeing this, please, VEN A LA PAGINA DE DISCUSION Y HABLANOS. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

i dont see sports in this article anywhere, shouldnt it be added? and links to famous profiles? —the preceding comment is by IvALBe (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!.