Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:17, 24 June 2008

Chile received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Chile B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

South America B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:V0.5 Template:FAOL

Archives

Archive 1 (2004–2006 (mixed)) Archive 2 (Oct 2006-Mar 2008)

PIB

The PIB PPP of Chile is 14.673 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.84.243 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics and propaganda

Can we please do away with all the favorable statistics in the intro. This does not belong here. This is not a Chilean government page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a government page, but it is an encyclopedia and the statistics and ranks enumerate what the article is basically about. Most, if not all of them are positive, which I think it the main reason why you remove them. You should read other country articles for comparison. Just because they are favourable it doesn’t make them "propaganda". I’ll give you random examples from other country articles:

United States

• The United States is one of the world's most ethnically diverse nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.
• The U.S. economy is the largest national economy in the world, with a nominal 2006 gross domestic product (GDP) of more than US$13 trillion (over 19% of the world total based on purchasing power parity).

Iceland

• As of 2007, Iceland is the most developed country in the world according to the Human Development Index and one of the most egalitarian, according to the calculation provided by the Gini coefficient.
• it is also the fourth most productive country per capita
• have a rich culture and heritage.

Germany

• It is the world's third largest economy by nominal GDP, the largest exporter of goods, ranked sixth in military expenditure, and is home to the third-highest number of international migrants.
• Germany has developed a high standard of living and established a comprehensive system of social security.

I hope we have settled this for good. Another issue that I want to address is; you keep changing ranks and numbers in the country infobox template, and it looks like pure vandalism. According to List of countries by population density the density is 194th but you keep changing it to 160th, why is that? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

~Reverting the article/infobox from sourced information is an act of vandalism. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if they were statistics of medium or low importance, such as "number of nurses by capita". Placing things like that in the first paragraph would look like propaganda, yes. But things like National Income, corruption, and human development are highly relevant and you will find them at the beginning of almost any country article. Also, they come from independent sources, not the Chilean government. Perhaps we could reach a compromise. Do you know of any relevant statistics that make Chile look less favourable? Of course there is no reason not to include negative statistics in the the first paragraph, as long as they are relevant and from a reliable source. Cambrasa (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added back the contested paragraph to the intro, while restoring the integrity of the rest of the article. Now I will address some of the points:

1) Intro: I would agree with having a second paragraph in the intro as long as it presents balanced statistics within an historical or general context, as it is done in the United States article, and not just an enumeration of (mostly positive) figures one after another, with no added value. In the case of the Germany and Iceland articles, these stats are in a third paragraph and are about four lines in length (in my browser). The Chile "stats" paragraph is EIGHT lines long and the second and final paragraph, which looks totally unbalanced for an introduction.

2) Infobox: I've used information from the Misplaced Pages "list of countries..." pages. When the Misplaced Pages pages are outdated, I've gone straight to the source, in this case the IMF. If you want me to source it within the infobox, I could do that. Regarding the density ranking being different in the infobox to that from the Misplaced Pages page, it's because the Misplaced Pages page had wrongly ranked non-sovereign entities, which are never ranked on Misplaced Pages list pages (this is probably even a policy; I don't know), so I substracted from the Chile rank all those entities that are not sovereign. A further reason for doing this is because the ranking serves the purpose of comparing a country against others, and if we have some lists ranking countries following one criteria and other lists ranked in another criteria, it's misleading. I've used the same criteria, so the ranking holds some value.

☆ CieloEstrellado 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1) The information in the intro that is included with verifiable sources is no different from the introductions that can be viewed in articles pertaining to other countries. Included in the intro is the fact that Chile has a high Gini coefficient which is essentially not something to be deemed as favorable.
• 2) The Gini coefficient for Chile in the infobox is indeed 54.9 not 54 according to CieloEstrellado.
• 3) The date of submitted research to determine the Gini coefficient for Chile is 2003 not 2006.
• 4) List of countries by population density ranks Chile as 194th not 160th.
• 5) Constantly deleting sources/citations from the History, Politics, and Economy sections is counterproductive. Properly referenced material is academically important which reinforces the factual basis of the information while providing validity.

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gini for 2006 is 54 according to the Casen poll. I've sourced this. I've also changed the density ranking back to 194th while I update the rankings in the list. You have been carelessly reverting this article, not realizing that your version contains a broken infobox (look at the malformed GDP tags). You are pushing a POV introduction with a long enumeration of favorable statistics to boost your ego. Shall I remind you this encyclopedia has a neutrality policy? Also, you've reverted this article four times within 24 hours, and if an admin notices it, it will get you blocked. Have a good day. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because there's no unfavourable stats it doesn't make the favourable stats propaganda. Feel free to add some unfavourable stats, if you can find them. There is no rule that says the stats have to be in the 3rd or 4th paragraph. Let's not get personal here. I'm not from Chile so I'm not boosting my ego, nor is Selecciones de la Vida. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I love what you did to the article, expanding the intro like that, brilliant. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you. It still needs some work, though. ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see why we would have to delete information which is based on VERIAFIABLE sources. Many other articles, which by the way have been listed above, contain favorable information because they’re based on FACTS and not propaganda. I don’t know what your agenda is, but I must remind you that unexplained edits and deletions are highly discouraged as per Misplaced Pages standards. Future behavior of that nature, can be considered as vandalism and/or POV pushing and wiil be promptly reported Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot generated title

What does bot generated title mean? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It means a computer program adds a title to a reference by scanning its URL. ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

I think IPA should be used to clarify the pronounciation. I came here looking for if it was Chil-ay, or Chil-ee, but it isn't shown. Grsz 11 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

in all spanish words the E is pronounced like in english bed.--200.27.116.218 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalization of the article by Likeminas

User:Likeminas has been constantly reverting practically every edit I make, without explaining why. If you see his last reversion today, he reverted to a previously vandalized version of the article that had well established content removed and replaced some sourced information with false, unsourced information that had been added by anonymous vandals. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir; you have managed to get a bunch of people against your repetitive deletions and capricious edits. Your Talk-page speaks for itself.

Moreover, your contributions clearly indicate that you have recently engaged in edit warring, therefore, violating Misplaced Pages standards.

Judging by your own history of conflicts with other users, and your continuous POV pushing the only vandal I know of, it's you. Likeminas (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing, edit warring and vandalism by Cielo estrellado.

This user has pushed his POV very aggressively. Even by means of deleting properly sourced information which is relevant to the article. As we all know this is a serious offence since deleting relevant information with legitimate references not only amounts to POV pushing, but also to vandalism.

In addition to that, user:cielo estrallado has, as of today, engaged in edit warring with other contributors, another clear violation of Misplaced Pages’s rules and regulations…

These offenses have not been isolated events(see this) that's why I strongly believe that any other violations ought to be immediately reported to an administrator for further review. That's the only way to keep a clean and constructive environment.Likeminas 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

His latest reversion might need explanation, especially if it is contested by other users. In my opinion, citing that Chile was a founding member of the UN is quite irrelevant considering that there were 51 founding members a fairly large number of total number of independent States of that year. Exceptional cases are those that would be worth mentioning, like former members, non-members or members of the Security Council. But, this appreciation, of course, is subject to discussion. --the Dúnadan 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~I strongly support the inclusion of Chile presently being an active, original member of the United Nations. The information does not conceivably violate notability standards as previously suggested by CieloEstrellado. Current membership status is informative and also contextually applicable on a historical basis. Discussing the matter regarding issues of relevancy can lead towards a general consensus and is more reasonably justifiable than simply removing the content.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions come to my mind:

• Why is current membership informative and contextually applicable in a way that it differs from the other 51 founding members or of the 192 actual members, so that a note has to be made about Chilean membership?
• Your reference proves that Chile is a founding member—it is simply a list of countries with their year of ascension into the organization. However, it says nothing about "activity". Arguably, all members are "active". How do you define "active"? In what ways is Chile more "active" than the rest of the members so that a note has to be included as if it were more relevant than the rest? Do you have another reference that says that Chile's participation within the UN is more "active" than the rest?

My point is, in what ways is Chile's membership in the UN different from the rest of the countries? Should we have a similar note on all founding members? Maybe so, I don't know. This is the place to discuss the relevancy of that statement.

--the Dúnadan 12:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

~I will carefully explain my position and will begin by stating that Chile being more active than other members was never a point. I am gathering that in your argument something has to be different in order to make it relevant and that should never be the sole purpose. Historically being a member of the United Nations has enabled Chile to be an active global player diplomatically while also coordinating foreign policy. The following are a few examples of Chilean involvement with the U.N.

• In 1945 Chile along with 50 other countries signed the United Nations Act in San Francisco which created the organization that has now grown to encompass 192 members. The following are a couple examples of involvements that Chile has with the U.N.

• Chile has participated in United Nations peace-keeping missions since 1948. Examples include the Arab-Israeli ceasefire in 1948, India-Pakistan, and are now situated in Bosnia-Herzegovina, while also currently being involved in Haiti.

• Chile only recently completed a two-year tenure as a non-permanent member on the Security Council a position where the country has been elected to serve in seven previous occasions.

In so many words Chile is an active member of the United Nations and has been since the start of the organization. The statement in the introductory overview is factually supported and relevant when discussing Chile. I would like to note that my previous introductions of the material onto the Foreign Relations segment of the article have also been deleted by CieloEstrellado with no explanation. If needed a source which includes Chilean U.N. activity can also be provided.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase my question, because it seems that it is not understood properly. What things is Chile doing within the UN that no other founding member does? The three points that you mentioned are applicable to all 51 founding members. If they all do the same, they are all active and founding members, which then makes any country's activity as relevant as the other. Should we write on all 51 founding members the same phrase? "The United States is an active and founding member of the UN", "Argentina is an active and founding member of the UN"? --the Dúnadan 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you put it that way,it indeed, sounds as an irrelevant line; however, not all the articles about a country are standardized or identical. Neither should they be.

I’m assuming some editors would like to keep that line, because Chile has, in some ways, played a more active role in recent peace keeping missions such as; Haiti and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It might also be relevant that Chile was part of the Security Council during a time, when that body had to authorize the invasion of Iraq. As far, as I’m concerned only a handful of founding members took part in those processes.

In any case, I personally don’t mind omitting that piece of information; nonetheless, the socioeconomic facts that precede that sentence should not be omitted due to their high relevance. Deleting them without a proper discussion, as some users have been doing, is considered vandalism and dealing with that, is the specific purpose of this section. Likeminas (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~The information will be moved and added to the Foreign Relations section of the article.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

IMF plagiarizes Misplaced Pages's Chile article, takes credit

The IMF's Article IV report on Chile (dated Sept. 2007) has an incredibly similar table showing Chile's international rankings on page 10. The rankings included are the same, save for one or two. The columns are the same: Publisher, Index, Overall ranking, Lat. Am. ranking, Countries surveyed, Top % (labeled "Percentile ranking") and Date. To add insult to injury they put at the end of the copied table: "Source: Staff calculations". Shame on them for not giving proper credit! ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope the above comment was a satire. I would be surprised if the IMF, a reputable institution as it is, would copy content from us. Rather, I would suspect a user copied information from them, even if was summarized form a different page within the same IMF website. --the Dúnadan 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't satire. I constructed that table on January 27 2007 based on a similar one at the Chile article on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, way before that IMF report was completed on June 25 2007. (The International rankings section was created much earlier, on December 11, 2002, and was then copied onto the Spanish Misplaced Pages on November 20, 2004, but those early versions bear no resemblance to the version the IMF would copy later. The only reason I mention this is to note that the idea for this was present years before.) The "Top %" column was my idea (the IMF renamed it "Percentile ranking," which I concede is a better name that we should perhaps copy, heh heh). The names "Overall ranking" and "Countries surveyed" —also my own creation— were copied verbatim by the IMF. It is just obvious that the IMF plagiarized the table from us and took the credit. I feel honored and outraged... at the same time. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chile article as a Carbon-Copy

Why is this article about Chile an exact copy of this website? http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1981.htm Just pay close attention to the History, Politics, Economy, Foreign Trade, Finance, Defense, Foreign Relations in the Chile article when comparing it to the Background notes on the US Department of State website.

In this article some of the parts such as Foreign Relations and Defense sections have been properly noted, while the History and Politics sections have been been plagarized. Should this even be common practice? Isn't it a disservice to just simply copy whole sections from another website which amounts to a large amount of text and simply transfer it over to Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia on its own right? I mean might as well state the obvious since the topic of plagarism has been brought up.CenterofGravity (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The US State Department country profiles are on the public domain. Nice try. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chile in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes parts of Chile. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

As a Chilean, I have never known that we are or were part of the Dutch Empire, but, I can tell you that by now we certainly are part of the US Empire. And ain't a joke...--Auslander71 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is not based on reliable sources, at least not the whole of it. According to WP:Verifiability, all articles "must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". However, the claim that Chile is a leading country in terms of "economic freedom" was based on claims made on the websites of Freedom House, Heritage Foundation and Fraser Institute. The latter two are conservative right-wing think tanks and Freedom House is known for its connections to the political right, thus all of them are highly biased sources. And the CIA is completely unacceptable as a source on Chilean economic data given that it had played a major role in Pinochet's takeover (see 1973 Chilean coup d'état). In general, such controversial claims should only be based on peer-reviewed journals and books or at least not only on sources that all support the same ideology.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Public domain resources only states that using such sources does not violate copyrights. However, it does not say that those sources are necessarily reliable and unbiased ones. Given the CIA record in Chile, any information it supplies on the economic situation must be dealt with mistrust and should at least be backed by other more reliable sources.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

~The CIA World Factbook uses the following sources.

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

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

~The Index of Economic Freedom is a product of the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal which as a major newspaper falls under the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability standards for reliable sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.)

Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim about "economic freedom" I would only doubt the general consensus on this issue as long as only right-wing think tanks are cited. I would however not object to a more careful phrasing acknowledging that this is only one position held on the issue. (For example "Chile is a leading country ... and has often been listed as a leading country in terms of economic freedom").

The problem with the CIA-handbook is that they do not explicitly state on which of the sources their information is based so that it is not possible to directly use the cited sources. Not all of the listed ones are free of political interests with regard to economic and foreign policy issues, so it would be relevant which one has been cited. And given that the CIA handbook is not the result of peer-reviewed scientific work, their selection of sources would also be an issue.

There should be at least one more source for the claims. I would expect that it should be easy to find further sources on such a fundamental issue as the poverty line.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The new sources are good ones though, according to the UNDP ranking, Chile would be second to Argentina in the Latin America context. However, I can live with this version. I have only added the word "comparatively" given that the national population living under the poverty line is still over 10% according to the Economist article.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have inserted the old sources while replacing the new ones without a comment. I have reinserted the newer sources as I don't see a reason for removing them and don't consider the old ones reliable.--Fan of Freedom (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Motto

The real meaning of the Chilean motto "Por la Razon o la Fuerza", translate as, "By the Reazon or the Force".Auslander71 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flora

how come on this website you can see everything about chile but it isn't summarised in some part and you have to read the whole topography or geography section to get any information on Flora. there should be a part on plant life in Chile!!!!!!! who's with me on this. do not trust[REDACTED] because people can change things to the wrong things on topics.71.10.230.14 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always register an account on[REDACTED] and add content to the article. There is nothing stopping you adding the content you think is missing once you are registered (I think it takes just 4 days to stop being a "new user" and then beingable to edit semi-protected articles.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you specify at the beginning of the article, the pronunciation of República de Chile

The current IPA symbols used for the pronunciation: Template:IPAes Would anyone who has got access on the article specify this as other homologous articles do? 84.120.160.88 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Racist and Xenophobic vandalism on this article by User:Sclua

Following a series of edit warring (explained in his talk-page) in order to prevail his POV, this user has decided to attack the article of Chile a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

I also received an insult from him: "nobody say 'red bars', southamerican!!". That's exactly what this xenophobic and racist user just called me. It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... But because I have some userboxes in my user page about Chile, user Sclua is consistently attacking this article. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

Some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

I therefore ask any editor of this article to undo any of his racist and despective comments and warn him in his talk page in order to stop this regrettable behaviour. Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class Chile articles
• Top-importance Chile articles
• WikiProject Chile articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class South America articles
• Unknown-importance South America articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles