Talk:Chile

Template:Vital article

Easter Island

A special territory of Chile that was annexed in 1888, Easter Island is famous for its 887 extant monumental statues, called moai (play /ˈmoʊ.aɪ/), created by the early Rapanui people. It is a World Heritage Site (as determined by UNESCO) with much of the island protected within Rapa Nui National Park. In recent times the island has served as a cautionary tale about the cultural and environmental dangers of overexploitation. Ethnographers and archaeologists also blame diseases carried by European colonizers and slave raiding[4] of the 1860s for devastating the local peoples.

Easter Island is claimed to be "the most remote inhabited island in the world"

Easter Island shares with Juan Fernández Islands the sui generis constitutional status of "special territory" of Chile, granted in 2007. As of that time a special charter for the island was under discussion: therefore it continued to be considered a province of the Valparaíso Region and containing a single commune (comuna). This is unique in Chile, since all other provinces consist of more than one commune. Both the province and the commune are called Isla de Pascua and encompass the whole island and its surrounding islets and rocks, plus Isla Salas y Gómez, some 380 km (236 mi) to the east.

See also: list of islands of Chile Provinces of Chile

Note - The Chile Article does not have any live links to the Easter Island article. If a section to Chile is not added for Easter Island then at least the references should be made as active links to the Wiki article.

Edit Request: Update on Free Trade Agreements

I am preparing a case study on Chile and the Free Trade Agreements of Chile look like out-dated.

For example, in 2011, there is a new Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Chile which was signed on 14 July 2009 in Santiago and entered into force on 1 March 2011.

http://www.economy.gov.tr/index.cfm?sayfa=tradeagreements&bolum=fta&country=CL&region=0

Ethnic Composition of Chile

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

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

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

Proposed merge with Environmental issues in Chile

This article is a stub dealing with an enormously important topic that already has a section under Chile. As it stands it doesn't warrant a stand alone article. What little is new can be folded into the main article for Chile. Ad Orientem (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. Let me kindly disagree with the proposed merge. I just took a look at the article Chile, and there is a section "Geography, climate, and environment", with a subsection "Biodiversity". OK, I started a new article, which is very short so far (a stub) - but I consider that "environmental issues" really deserves to be exposed. The article Chile says almost nothing about environmental problems. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Article expanded with several issues. Please review, thank you. --Fadesga (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. It shouldn't be moved. OccultZone (Talk) 18:20, 2 February 2014

Disagree. There's lots of stuff under "Environment Issues" currently going on in Chile that deserve its own article. I'm pretty sure the Chile article summarizes each topic into a few paragraphs and gives the reader a choice to go to the main article of each corresponding topic if he/she wants more detailed info, which is why I added a "see also" link under the "Geography, climate, and environment" category that links to the "Environmental issues in Chile" article, and I hid the merging template (because it simply looks awful). MindZiper (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit request: By "reason or force"

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request: Delete "Castilian-culturing" term from the lead

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

A long country when measured north to south, but #2 ranking is not correct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. France (including five overseas departments, Reunion being the southernmost), 51.1 north to 21.2 south, total 72.3 degrees of latitude. 2. USA (all 50 states), 71.4 north to 18.9 north, total 52.5. 3. Australia, 9.1 south to 55 south, total 45.9. 4. Netherlands (including Caribbean areas), 53.6 north to 12 north, total 41.6. 5. Canada (including Arctic islands), 83.1 north to 41.7 north, total 41.4. 6. Russia (including Arctic islands), 81.8 north to 41.2 north, total 40.6. 7. Chile, 17.5 south to 56.54 south, total 39.04. 8. Brazil, total 39, all mainland. 9. China, 53.6 north to 18.2 north, total 35.4. 10. Argentina, 21.5 south to 55.1 south, total 32.4.

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

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

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