Talk:Chile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review 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.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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.
This article is part of WikiProject South America, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Chile is 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-compatible images.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
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.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Chile as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French,  German or Spanish language Wikipedias.

/Archive 1


Archived Discussions

All topics which had the last dated addition prior to December 1, 2006 have been moved to /Archive 1. Any entries without date were considered to carry the date of the latest entry with a date in the section under consideration. Non-dated sections were all considered to be prior to Dec 1st if followed by a section prior to that date.

Contents

[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)

---

To understand the Chilean social and political development, it is necessary a deep vision of the socialist policy from the government since the President Eduardo Frei Montalva (DC) and its connection, like efect of a cause, with directions from PS and PC. I respect others opinions but see clearly a kind of "plan" to make of Chile a socialist country -"socialist" not like we understand today but understood like in the 1960's.Ear a kcid. More than a thesis, I see an evidence, confirmed after during the Allende's socialist government. I will work on this. GALVARINUS.201.239.176.92 13:09, 15 December 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."[1] The country's population is thus relatively homogeneous, with most being of mestizo[2][3] 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[[4]] 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".[5] 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 [[6]] 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."[7]

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] Indians and North American [Cherokee/Choctaw] Indians 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)


The spanish wikipedia has a discussion also about this topic with more or less the same argument here, at the end they choose "La población chilena es de origen mestizo, derivado de la mezcla racial entre los conquistadores españoles y los pueblos aborígenes" ...meaning "the chilean population is from/of Mestizo origin". I don´t see what´s te big fuss about it, as most latinamericans chileans are mestizos. The royal spanish language academy defines mestizo as: mestizo, za.

(Del lat. tardío mixticĭus, mixto, mezclado). 
1. adj. Dicho de una persona: Nacida de padre y madre de raza diferente, en especial de hombre blanco e india, o de indio y mujer blanca. U. t. c. s. 
2. adj. Dicho de un animal o de un vegetal: Que resulta de haberse cruzado dos razas distintas. 
3. adj. Dicho de la cultura, de los hechos espirituales, etc.: Provenientes de la mezcla de culturas distintas.

meaning "Born from a father and mather of different races, specially white and indian..." not saying that has in any context or in any country per-se a derogatory meaning. As i said i don´t see what´s the big deal about it... thx

It appears to me that some of the arguments over this issue have forgotten that the main point of putting anything in the English Wikipedia is to provide information for English speking readers. If it is acceptable, and neutral to use a term such as "mestizo", in English to describe a person of a mixed racial ancestry, then we use it. It is too bad if some over-sensitive Chilean who might not even undersand English very well, gets offended over that term, but that is no reason to switch to some convoluted substitute, however, if there is a widespread objection the use of a certain English term in the Spanish used in Chile, it would be very appropriate to add a comment to the article to state that "people in Chile are generally offended if this term is used" or something of that nature. The first rule in an English publication is to use good English.JAXHERE | Talk 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard 34% only lived in povaty--86.29.248.32 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:CITE. Khoikhoi 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1997 a World Bank report entitled "Chile: Poverty and Income Distribution in a High-Growth Economy: 1987-1995" concluded that the high GDP growth rates achieved by Chile during the late 1980's and early 1990's had contributed unambiguously to a considerable reduction in poverty, in terms of incidence, depth and severity. The incidence of indigence fell from 13% in 1987 to a mere 4% by 1994, and the headcount estimate showed that the population that lived in poverty fell from 41% in 1987 to 17% by 1994. The 1997 report also confirmed that declining poverty was strongly and positively related to high economic growth. This reduction in poverty during 1987-94 benefited almost all groups classified as vulnerable at the beginning of the period.

World Bank (1997), "Chile: Poverty and Income Distribution in a High-Growth Economy 1987-1995", Report Nº 16377-CH, November 25, Washington D.C

World Bank (2000), "Chile: Poverty and Income Distribution in a High- Growth Economy 1987-1998", Washington D.C. --201.223.113.50 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Españoles de la guerra civil española (Los niños)

Does anybody know anything about presence of Los Niños, that's Spanish for children who were educated in Russia (the former Soviet Union) after the Spanish Civil War (1935-39), in Chile during the Allende era (1970-73)? The following citation [8] seems to suggest that they were El Jigue 12-15-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

It'll be nice for any wikipedian to search the web on the Franco -refugee Spanish migration to Chile. There are many Chileans who fought in the Spanish civil war against the Phalange and Nazi troopers sent to Spain, also some joined the French Foreign Legion during WWII fighting the Nazis in France and invaded Germany or Italy to defeat fascism. Also to note the anti-Franco Spanish migration settled in Mexico, Cuba and Costa Rica, but the subject is on those who came to Chile and/or Argentina had received large amounts of this influx of political refugees. 63.3.14.2 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean-American relations

Not many people outside of Chile realized they were friendly to the US (the country's major north-south highway named for Franklin D. Roosevelt), but many pro-Nazi agitators like Chilean diplomat and sympathizer Mario Serrano caused problems in the government during the 1940s, and there had been Nazi war criminals and later east German officials went to exile in Chile.

The Chilean armed forces is a regular member in UN peacekeeping missions, with Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia on their side. South Americans had a long history of fighting overseas with the allies (US, UK and France, major liberal influences in the revolutions deposed the Spanish king from the Americas in the early 1800's).

Chileans as well Colombians fought in the Korean war in the 1950s, as well a few Chileans in the US army during the troubling Vietnam war when many Latin American and Asian (south Korea and Thailand) army officers (Australia/New Zealand troops fought alongside Americans) assisted in efforts to defeat communists in that part of the world.

But this bothered Pablo Neruda, famous Chilean poet served as a diplomat stationed in Burma and South Vietnam wrote about the negative impact of US diplomacy on Southeast Asia in the late 1960s. Neruda's death during the coup of 1973 under house arrest is considered suspicious, but let's not assume he was poisoned by army guards surrounding his home.

Neruda never was arrested. He died by natural causes.--201.223.113.50 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bookwriter Isabel Allende also describes how Chileans spoke out against US politics like her father Salvador Allende, but some Chilean dissidents moved to the US during the Carter administration as he condemned Pinochet and all military regimes (US allies) in human rights abuses, and Europe followed suit in the late 1970's to cut diplomatic ties and trade agreements with Chile, Argentina and Brazil.

During the Reagan administration, Chilean army officers again offered advice and support to the US army in Central America, the 1983 invasion of Grenada, and in Latin American and African wars against communism (in Colombia, Angola and Mozambique for example). The US regrettably paid billions of dollars to purchase firearms from Chilean ammo tycoon, Carlos Cardeon later found to supplied the Iraqi army under leader Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 63.3.14.2 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA studies of ethnic origens

Present day Indigenous populations from Northern Chile have been reported to have the usual Indigenous haplotype groups. e.g. haplogroup A, 8.3%; haplogroup B, 62.5%; haplogroup C, 25% and haplogroup D, 4.2% [9]. Indigenous individuals from Santiago show the expected asymmetrical origens (male parent mainly "European"), female parent mainly Indigenous) [10]. This could be interpreted to indicate that the Chilean population following Spanish law and customs is legally mostly "European," since the male progenitors were commonly from Europe, through the years of legal establishment of "Certificados de Pureza de Sangre" and because the Indigenous elite were considered under these laws to be nobility and thus by definition Spanish. There are also complex problems of later European settlement in Chile, where settlements by those of German, Polish, Russian origens (and thus from areas here the successive "Mongolian" invasions occurred) may have some "asian" haplogroups (and therefore be in this respect equivalent to original Indigenous "Americans);" however, this particular topic is left for others to discuss. El Jigue 12-17-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC). :I'm giving you one more chance 'Little Joe' to stop blogging talk pages. IF you don't, I'm reporting you to the Administrators. GoodDay 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget this warning 'Little Joe'. See Beardo's Discussion page. Your blogging on Talk:Cuba & Talk:Fidel Castro caused me to jump to conclusiond here. PS- see Blog for What a blog is? GoodDay 21:07, 17 December 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 Patstuarttalk|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. -Patstuarttalk|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. Patstuarttalk|edits 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

63.3.14.1 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports in Chile

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!

Yes, there are professional sports in Chile, and the national soccer or football team made several World Cup playoff runs (Chile hadn't qualified to play in the recent world cup in Germany). There are 16 professional soccer teams, plus the Palestine team made up of Palestinian Arab immigrant players. Not only soccer is the country's biggest sport, many Chileans are fans of basketball and tennis, professional and semi-pro levels. In recent years, baseball, golf and rugby had gotten popular in Chile, while women's sports recieved more fanfare. The country's long coastline and the Lake district are great for sailing competitons, fishing contests and water sports. You'll find Chile has attracted all types of recreation like hiking, bicycling and rafting. Chile has over 50 skiing resorts like the Portillo resort in the Andes, both have a cold climate and steep terrain. Surprisingly, there is a national ice hockey team represents Chile (see their web site: www.Hockeychile.org). Ice hockey may not be very trendy at this time, but Chile was influenced by some Northern European immigration known to introduced ice hockey in a few countries of the southern hemisphere. 63.3.14.1 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are actually 32 professional soccer teams (www.anfp.cl), 20 of them playing on the first division, and 12 of them playing on the second division. One of the 20 first division teams is actually suspended from playing (Deportes Concepción), because they didn'y pay their players. Palestino is not a team made only by immigrant players. Recently the female indoor hockey team became world champion, and Fernando González is currently ranked 10th in the atp indesit ranking. Rodcontr 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When Palestine(o) began to play, it was named for that Middle Eastern country for a reason I don't know (unlike the Boston Celtics US basketball team in the 1920s). The team players of Palestino are mostly Chileans with few foreign player agents signed to play for the team. On hockeychile.org, you forgot to include the /cl (www.hockeychile.cl), which helps to log in by adding the national address. For a web site to have a .org indicates it's an North American web site. 63.3.14.1 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Dont... '.org' stand for organization and .com for company? (PS: Merry Christmas) EduardoGonzales 22:08, December 22, '06
A sports team/franchise is an organization as a private business, while the most used internet address tag .com' stands for 'computer'. The rising number of internet subscribers in Chile serves the country, but in a high-tech age every country in the world has access to radio (esp. shortwave), cable, satellite TV, broadband and wireless, whether you live in central Africa or in very developed Japan or isolated in the earth's polar regions.

[edit] Progress in Chile

I'm aware the Chilean government not only focused on improving media access, but as stated in the Chilean constitution: the elimination of poverty and the goal to become "developed" by 2010 or later, Chile takes drastic steps on socioeconomic access, universal health care (medical service is good and standard), renovation of public education ranked one of Latin America's best, and certain business regulations to help bring forth privatization are major priorities. A national drive to increase vaccinations and child health issues (breastfeeding is promoted by the national ministry of health, but infant formulas are widely available) had been pushed harder in recent years in a country where millions of children indeed live in poverty. In fact, Chile used to have one of the world's best social welfare systems, but there's a great need to upgrade their tightened troubled pension system for retirees, seniors and the high percentage of unemployed people. I understand the huge presence of right-wing politics and the military is a powerful political influence, but Chileans had emphasized a necessity to expand social reforms and to better redistribute its' wealth, a major theme of the current moderate socialist congress.

Under Bachelet and fellow socialists and center-left parties, congress passed new laws to legalize divorce in a mostly Catholic country, still has a "machismo" cultural nature as always in Latin America. The Chilean police created a domestic abuse/child abuse or desertion hotline for victims to report these crimes that happen too often, but most Chilean men spoke out against the impact of sexism and misogyny has done to their fellow women. Human rights in Chile and other developing countries (despite Chile led the way in the HDI index since 1995 ahead of 18 out of 24 other Latin American countries), is something they must work on. Tourists/visitors from other countries noticed there are more men sharing responbilities (parenting, household chores and financial matters) with their wives, while the rising number of Chilean women in politics and the workforce (despite far behind than developed countries) shown the length of social change has taken place. It used to be (by 1970) married Chilean women have to get written notes to enter casinos in Viña Del Mar, but as early as the 1970's, standard family planning clinics allowed the poor and abused Chilean women (esp. teenagers) recieved ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. (abortion on demand is illegal, except if it's from rape/incest and the woman has a life-threatening medical condition). 63.3.14.2 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on South America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#South America whose scope would include Chile. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, for anyone doing research on one or all South American countries and much of the work is already done to made/edit the articles. There's a pan-Latin American movement for awhile to call for a regional "Latin American" union (the NAFTA/North American Union, Central American confederation and Caribbean community are good examples). I think the European Union through the Lome conference includes Chile and 80 other non-European countries in its' special council of countries had great ties or formerly part of Europe.

Chile-related topics is another good place to research general information on Chile from the newspapers and mass media: The large number of UFO reports in Chile is a common everyday subject that has serious coverage, but Chile has less people than Mexico City, Belgium and Australia, also are UFO-haunted areas for many decades. Some Ufologists believed certain parts of the world attracts UFOs to hover or appear over these "hot spots" to analyze seismic activity or rapid development, as Chile has these things.

Last year's "news of the weird" received a good volume of weird news from Chile, probably the country became an anchor to American media firms via California, where many tourists came from. In recent years, thousands of American and Australian expatriates or retirees moved to Chile to buy land or rent vacation homes, they came not for a bargain price but as "eco-tourists" to savor the scenery of its' coasts, mountains, forests, valleys and deserts. Except for Santiago, most of Chile remains like it was hundreds of years ago.

The HDI (Human Development Index) and living standards for Chile resembles Iceland, Israel and South Africa, indicates Chile is an interesting stage between developed and third world, the Chilean economy has stabilized after the 2000-01 slump and better managed than its' neighbors. Chile wants to inspire, not belittle their Latin American counterparts, on making their nations a better place...and its' current president Michelle Bachelet is a symbol of a modern progressive country. 63.3.14.2 13:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can name 3 stories from Chile in the weird news department: 1. In March 2005, a woman ordered a ham via a delivery firm to cook at her kitchen...and what she got was a human brain supposed to be sent to a science lab, it's one big mix-up. She later returned the human brain back to the delivery service and the brain was sent to its' proper address. 2. The discovery of whale blubber on a beach back in June 2004, was a big mystery by scientists who first thought it was part of a very large squid (I wish to send the picture) or wild theories of a mutant creature in the south Pacific ocean (it was disproven). And 3. In the northern reaches of the country (Atacama desert) in October 2000, a woman spotted a chupacabra in her bathroom window, and the creature was able to "think", because she observed how clever it was. The chupacabra opened the window and entered the bathroom. Out of morbid fear (after the thing "spoke" to her like by telepathy), she chased the chupacabra away and never again did it show up. I believe the scratches and broken glass made perfect evidence to proof the existence of chupacabra, but no further development came out of one weird news story. 63.3.14.2 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chile-related regional notice board

You are all invited to join the Chile-related regional notice board. Jespinos 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted to last version on 23 December

I reverted to the last edit by me, at 22:47, 23 December 2006. The reason is because of this edit, by 164.77.109.204 (talk • contribs), in which he destroyed months of editing. I apologize to users who made intermediate edits, but it was necessary due to the destructiveness of the revert. Khoikhoi 04:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving older discussions

I've only recently come to read this discussion page and, as a new comer find that there seems to be a lot of "old" discussions which detract from the current issues.

I'd like to propose that any topic which has not been added to after Novermber 1st, 2006, be archived. I have no particular reason for this date except that it seems, to me, a reasonable cut-off.

What do the rest of you think? --JAXHERE | Talk 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Pinochet photo

Would User:Mikkalai please explain why he believes including this photo in the article is not a valid fair use. --JAXHERE | Talk 15:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map of chile

algun chileno o español que hable ingles si podria cambiar el mapa de chile que muestra argentina con campos de hielo siendo q esta zona se encuentra en litigio desde 1998 y que corresponderia un cuadrado blanco en el territorio en disputa,el mapa actual es completamente falso y pasa a llevar todos los acuerdos , al ser este un mapa ilegal tiene que ser cambiado inmediatamente.El trabajo se lo dejo a algun chileno que quiera defender soberania ya que los sr de habla inglesa no creo que tomen la iniciativa.

de antemano muchas gracias. saludos

Although it makes sense to expect that several editors of this article might understand Spanish, it would be a matter of common respect to all editors in an English-language publication to enter comments in English.
To address the issue of the comment, the fact that this map is not officially approved by one of the goverments who might be affected by it, does not make it necessarily invalid for inclusion in Wikipedia for a point of reference if it is largely accurate. Because the map is "illegal" in chile doesn't affect Wikipedia. If it did, Argentines would also have a valid reason to protest if their "version" of the map weren't published too. --JAXHERE | Talk 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a Commons's image that contains a map of Chile with a white rectangle in Campos de Hielo Sur. That one is the version accepted by the both country, is free and is good. So, I changed the old one. Bye. Lin linao 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean flag before independence

Before the national flag was raised in 1818 after Chile broke away from Spanish rule, there was another flag raised in Chile (other flags were used across Latin America, like the New Granada confederacion flag and the United Provinces of La Plata official flag). first flag of Chile 1812-14 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.14.2 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Is Chile still an third-world country?

Before you start screaming at me, this is a question all together, which I don't know the answer to, and I couldn't find in the article. First of all is the question, what are the requirements to be a "First world country" (which you would think that would be in First World or something. It wasn't last time I checked)? Second of all, does Chile fit the requirements, if not, what doesn't it fit? --Eduardo 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's call it a "second world" or "developing" country, a stage between developed (like Western Europe, the US/Canada and Japan) and undeveloped (central Africa, much of Central America and parts of the Pacific islands). To indicate Chile is developed in the same level as Estonia, Thailand and Bahrain, you need to check on essential needs the country has (the HDI) in these standard of living categories: available education, unemployment rates, fair treatment of workers, literacy rates, economic prosperity status, income distribution, access to medical care, how many calories a person gets daily, the role of women's and minority rights, how much basic freedoms are there, industrial growth or presence of heavy manufacturing, social progressiveness, technological development, fiscal revenue increases, and political stability. Chile ranks in 6 or 7 out of 10 (not my view, but the HDI suggested Chile is in the 50's, one of the highest in the western and southern hemispheres, of course the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are way ahead of Chile and south America, including the equally innovative lands of Argentina and Brazil). 63.3.14.1 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibáñez del Campo first goverment

The article says in History of Chile: "By relinquishing power to a democratically elected successor, Ibáñez del Campo retained the respect of a large enough segment of the population to remain a viable politician for more than thirty years, in spite of the vague and shifting nature of his ideology" I think ( actually i know) there´s a mistake there, Ibáñez didn´t relinquished power to any elected successor in 1931, he was just kick out by a wave of popular protest tired by his dictatorship and the worsening economic situation due to the 1929 depression. He took power in 1927 from the elected president Emiliano Figueroa Larraín, in a classical military coup. He reinvented himself ideollogically several times, till find a populist Perón-like style in the early 50s in a society tired of inflation and radicalism (the radical party rule 1939-1952) I dont know who made up the above statement, but anyway i just make this rectification, i supposed the civil way is to point out to this mistake rather than editing the mainpage by myself, as someone can have a better understanding of the Caída de Ibáñez issue thx --Nandodick 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean Holidays

i am doing a class project and i need to know about one holiday from Chile that is not celebrated in the U.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.111.14.170 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

You should check up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holidays_in_Chile my guess is navy day which goes beyond the purely militar aspect of it... Nandodick 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Was 'navy day' declared a holiday to commemorate the failed Chilean Naval mutiny on a battle ship in the sea port of Valparaiso, back in August 1973? I think it was a group of naval sailors and army officers banded together to back Allende, and wanted to take control of the Chilean armed forces out of right-wing conspirators, but the country fell into the Pinochet military regime. 63.3.14.1 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Wikipedia is not sure to delete or re-edit the Alejandrina Cox incident article. It describes an incident between a housewife and a military general, Carlos Prats, not long before that coup. The incident's impact on Chilean history should be noted, but the wikipedia admins dubbed the article "original research" and never had enough criteria or sources to begin with. 63.3.14.2 23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Navy Day has nothing to do with 1973 events, it remembers the 1879 war against Peru and Bolivia... but goes beyond militar aspect of remembrance, is the day Preident address the nation his/her annual account in Congress and parliament opens its "ordinary seasson". 1973 sailor´s mutiny (rebelión de la marinería) never went further than plotting by some few members of the chilean navy, although was deemed as a fundamental "probe" of the Allende government to divided the armed forces and achieve "total power" by a self-coup or a civil war. It fastened the plotting inside the Navy giving it a sense of urgency. So there wasn´t a mutiny in chilean navy in 1973. There was one mutiny by left-wing sailor in 1932 "socialist republic"... maybe you should check on Marmanduque Grove´s article for more details. --Nandodick 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction is too short

It would be great if somebody with knowledge of this article and Chile drafted longer intro (summary of history, politics, etc.). It should be approximately three paragraphs long. It would help this article a lot. Thank you.--Pethr 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP THE ATTACK TO CHILE
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

--86.29.248.32 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The origen of the Chilean population is spaniard, (to see demography of Chile ) the Chile economy does not have a 58% of poverty, is impossible with the entrance per capita and the HDI of Chile. Finally you not exclude please the beautiful images from my country. thanks. MY SOURCES:


1.- UNIVERSITY OF CHILE [[11]]

2,. THE WORLD VALUES WORLD CHILE 2006 [[12]]

3.- SPAIN GOV. [[13]]

4.- CIA [[14]]

Antarcticwik 05:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Dude is not an attack to say chilean people is a mix of spaniards and indians, is a fact. to say we all descent directly from Pedro de Valdivia is a little misguiding, we all (most of us at least) are mestizos and there´s nothing wrong about, so deal with it... maybe we have a majority of spaniard blood or that our main genetic heritage, but just say "the origen of chilean people is spaniard" as i say is false, is just not true,now deal with it and stop whining around... About the 58% of people in poverty i believe what the national statistic institute says: 25%... Nandodick 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TO STOP THE LIES

THE POVERTY IN CHILE IS OF 18 PERCENT (2006) SOURCES: http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/es/metadata.show?id=3696&currTab=simple

http://www.unicef.cl/indicadores/pobreza.htm

Antarcticwik

I find myself wondering if some contributors to this article and the discussion page want to help in building Wikipedia or do you simply want someplace where they can argue with somebody?
Keep in mind, our objective is to build an encyclopedia, not win debates or brow-beat others into submitting to our ideas.
I've checked out some of the sources and feel that Antarcticwik might be both right and wrong in his assertions. For example, the FAO report states "The Profile particularly focuses on nutrition indicators". From this I conclude that they might not take into account other definitions of poverty which other analysts and observers would use. So it is possible that the FAO might conclude that Chileans are not as poor as they were, from a nutritional point of view, but another observer might conclude that from the view point of education, or lifespan, or life style, or any of an hundred different view points the people are better or worse.
It's also possible that different sources of information might provide different results. In both the FAO and the UNICEF documents, it seems that the main source of information are "official" government documents. It has been seen in the past that some government views tend to present their information in ways that distort information so as to support their current political objectives. Sometimes we need to look for additional sources which are independent from these sources to either confirm or raise the possibility that there has been some manipulation of data. If we find conflicting sources, as an encyclopedia, we're best off to present both sides as clearly as possible and let readers decide who they want to believe.
We need to present any relevant information, with sources but also we need to present the basis on which these sources present their information and their view points, if we are going to do a good job of presenting readers with the facts which will all them to draw their own conclusions. This has nothing to do with Telling Lies or Attacking Chile or any of the silly retoric which has been passing through these pages...Let's present the facts in a Neutral Viewpoint (that's wiki policy), back them up with valid sources and get on with the job of producing some useful information about this topic, rather than bickering about who's right or who's wrong. --JAXHERE | Talk 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antarcticwik
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

--86.29.248.32 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say that most of Chile's population is Spanish, it says Los blancos y mestizos son claramente mayoritarios y solo un 4% de los chilenos se identifica como indígena, entre éstos la comunidad mapuche es la principal. Khoikhoi 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages!

This is a English language Wiki! I and obviosly other readers will not be able to read in ¡Spanish! Reserve the use of Spanish for the Spanish Wikis and use English on the English Wikis! Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.248.32 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC). --86.29.248.32 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?. I've seen some posts in Spanish, but they was made in November and... there are many people that can't write in an intelligible English even they can read it. For that peopel, we can accept a message in Spanish and translate it. In Wikies in Spanish, we do such thing with English speakers. Bye. --Lin linao 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't care

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChile_bdb0.html"