Talk:Chileans

vandalism in the introduction of the article

The information from the introduction of the article says that most of the Chilean population is mestizo, contradicting what they say Lizcano and genetic studies at the University of Chile and that are in the section of ethnic structure of the same article saying that the Most of the Chilean population is of European origin. --NewAntarcticwik (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture 'Chilean girls'

Yes, the girls in the picture are Chilean, but they are not representative of most Chileans, as they are from the European minority. Most Chileans are NOT blond, even if they want to be! John Rushton83 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Chilean girls if are representative of the chilean people, too the huasos are white and are poor people of the ranch. -signed by anon IP

I noticed the selection of photos seem to depict most Chileans are white and more European descent, although most Chileans are of American Indian ancestry, the majority are mestizo in various levels of Caucasian/Amerindian races.

I don't recommend anyone to study from viewing a youtube video of "beauties of Chile": Three Chilean Supermodels in the world photo modeling industry: Carolina Parsons, Gabriela Barros and Josefina Cisterinas. Parsons and Cisterinas appeared to have a more Caucasian appearance, Cisterinas has a light complexion similar to many Germans or Scandinavians, while Parsons has an English surname and Barros is what one calls a light brown mestiz(a). The supermodels' looks are found in the Chilean ethnoracial population, as well in European societies or those composed mostly of whites like the USA and Australia. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Snooki (Nicole Polizzi) of Jersey Shore fame is of Chilean birth but was adopted by an Italian-American family. The world knows her as being "American of Italian descent" alike her fellow co-stars. Here is proof of Snooki is probably the most famous American to come from Chile. 71.102.18.28 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Polizzi is Chilean (of Italian Chilean descent),

Article

The article failed to mention farily small numbers of Afro-Chileans (of African descent), Asian Chileans (mostly are of Japanese descent, including recent large-scale immigration from Taiwan and South Korea) and Easter Islanders, a native Polynesian people of Rapa Nui are present in the Chilean population. What makes the article of great interest is the sense of cultural homogeneity, despite the high level of race mixture between Europeans and indigenous people, and to a lesser extent, other races (i.e. African, East Asian and Polynesian). + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis on European immigration

Anyone glancing at this article would come to the conclusion that most Chileans are NOT descended from the Spanish colonisers of the Colonial period but from the European immigrants of the 19th and 20th century.

However. the majority of Chileans look far from German, French or English, and the vast majority have Spanish surnames. Chile isn't a Spanish-speaking Australia, New Zealand or America, despite the architecture! It is a Latin American country with an Hispanic heritage that is clearly visible in its folk culture.

So, wake up and stop day-dreaming, just because the Chileans of non-Hispanic European origin are the most influential in politics and the media don't make them the majority. The person who wrote the immigration section of the article clearly just stayed at home in a posh neighbourhood and watched Chilean TV where 75% of Chileans are blond and have German and Italian surnames. Go into town and see the reality for yourself!!! Wake up and stop living in dreamland!!!86.162.152.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

This has been discussed to satiety with user Kusamanic, who thinks Chileans are 90% white. I’m guessing this eventually get revolved through administrative action. Likeminas (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This obsession with paiting Chile as a country of European immigrants is going too far. Opinoso (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should have a text about the ancestry of the bulk of Chilean people, which is basicaly a mix of Spaniards and Amerindians. It only talks about European immigration, which is not really visible in most of Chile. Opinoso (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Opinoso. These studies by the University of Chile could be biased and only carried out in a White neighbourhood of Santiago, to deny the fact that Chile is a mestizo nation and as it is a University research, nobody can prove opposite. The elites in Chile are racist against Spanish and mestizo Chileans.86.155.75.145 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The position on Chile is akin to Israel, South Africa and Central Asia on countries' locations outside Europe and have a strong cultural foundation from an European nationality. There's no official statement from the Chilean government on the ethnoracial makeup of the country's population.

The subject of racial origins of Chileans intrigues, like 19th century physician and author Nicolas Palacios of La Raza Chilena once wrote he felt the Chilean population descended from "unmixed" Germanic Goths from Spain were an isolated bellicose martial race apart from the Latin-Mediterranean Castilians, except the most common land of origin for Spanish settlers are Andalusians (a legacy of the Vandals?). But Palacios doesn't hestitate on the 16th century Goths settled Chile, lived among the indigenous Mapuches and intermarried with them enough, so their descendants have acquired Amerindian genes. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable Chileans

Sure Arturo Pratt is a notable Chilean in Chile. Outside of it, most people know nothing about him.

Massu, might be notable, but Zamorano is widely know in the world most famous sport.

I'm afraid some users don't want Zamorano there because he's Mestizo? Maybe we should put only blode people with non-Spanish names. that's very representative of Chilean people.Likeminas (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ps: By the way, Pinochet being a good or bad dictator is certainly not the point. The point is that he's notable in and outside of Chile.

More info

I added more informations about Chilean people, taken from the book "As Américas e a Civilização– Processo de formação e causas do desenvolvimento desigual dos povos americanos" written by anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro. I noticed an IP number tried to remove the informations. Looking at the IP's contributions, it seems to be a sockpoppet of another user. Opinoso (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro.?¿ And the exact page of the information¿?. Better take your time to append information about blacks, mulattos and browns in Brazil, which are the majority, instead of manipulating articles on Chile--190.208.87.126 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This IP seems to be a sock poppet of User:Kusamanic. Please, go there:[1] Opinoso (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From the book "As Américas e a Civilização– Processo de formação e causas do desenvolvimento desigual dos povos americanos" written by Darcy Ribeiro:

"(...) the truth is that the Chilean people are a "new people", the result of mixing of the Spanish with the Amerindian. Their origin is the Mapuche Indian. Mestizos from this mixture, absorbing, in turn, more Indian blood because of mestizo-Amerindian marriage, were the ones who molded the fundamental genetic heritage of the Chilean people(...)"

"Chile has never received European contingents in large proportions that would absorb indigenous genetic content or socially overwhelm it, in a condition of inferior caste, under an avalanche of immigrants." Opinoso (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is up to Chileans to define themselves the way they want to. If they define themselves as majority "white and mestizo", that's up to them. "White" is a social construct, and as such it can be used freely.

Saludos to the lovely Chilean people from a fellow South AmericanGrenzer22

Warning Opinoso

Just to let you know that Opinoso is not Latin American. He is a biased non Latin American who has become the dictator of Brazilian related subjects, as well as other Latin American subjects, he may even work for a foreign government or a foreign agency. As a fellow Latin American, a Brazilian, I know it is not relevant to us at all whether Chileans view themselves as White or whatever. Biased non Latin Americans project all their racialist agendas at Latin American topics, which is a shame.

Saludos Grenzer22

I don't care whether Opinoso is Latin American or whether you are: people of any nationality or residence are free to make edits to this or any other article, provided that these edits conform to the policies of Wikipedia. Doubtless there are (say) Russians who are better qualified to write on Chile than many Chileans are -- just as there are (say) Chileans who are better qualified to write on Russia than many Russians are. If anyone is at all widely perceived as the "dictator" of one or more articles, then we have a real or perceived problem of ownership. If what's explained here is insufficient, then referring to the real or perceived owner as a "dictator" is certainly not the way to do it, and neither is muttering about being in the pay of foreign governments: putting aside the question of whether it's "civil" or a "personal attack", talk such as this just tends to make the writer look ridiculous. If you have a substantive complaint, then make it coherently and dispassionately. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Opinoso.

The above mentioned user has a history of POV pushing on articles about the ethnography of Chile.

It seems he’s obsessed with making look Chile as an Amerindian nation, despite evidence to the contrary.

He’s gone as far as pushing that POV into the lead with dubious books, and adding Ribeiro’s opinion as it was of the at the same academic level of actual genetic studies on the matter.

I advised him to stop, because that seems like enough grounds for a block under tendentious editing.Likeminas (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The information is sourced and the book is famous and was translated to several languages. It is avaible online in Portuguese so that anyone can read it[2].

Your accusations that I am faking informations or that Darcy Ribeiro is POV are huge accusations and you must be ready to prove why you are edit-warring, removing sourced informations and leaving impolite messages on my talk page without any justification. By the way, I'm not trying to make Chile look as an Amerindian nation. First of all: to be an Amerindian nation is not negative. Second: the informations are sourced on a famous book. Opinoso (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes your POV pushing when you want to add your "informations" twice in the same article, especially when you're attempting to give it the same weight as genetic studies.

As it be seen in this talk page, my history of battling the whiten ideology is unambiguous. But that doesn't mean I will take the extreme opposite stance of claiming that Chileans are mostly Amerindian (which by the way, I never said or even implied it was a bad thing). That said, I will just add that I don't necessarily disagree with Riberiro's opinion. But it must be given the appropriate weight (as an opinion) and place (certainly not the lead) within the article. Likeminas (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it the book is so "famous" why can't you get an electronic copy of it? It would help to clear any possible misunderstandings or misquotations for that matter.Likeminas (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

All the different points of view about a subject may be added to an article. If Ribeiro's work is minority, this does not allow you to remove the information. By the way, the article is not yours, it's not up to you to decide which informations may or may not be added. And a single genetic resource is not conclusive, and it doesn't say that most Chileans are Whites according to the genetic study. The genetic resource found a mixed population and it only gives the 60% White figure because it is the most used in different sources (it did not conclude that 60% of people tested on the genetic resource are Whites, because everybody tested was mixed). You are making up different conclusions from what the genetic resource found. Opinoso (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:weight for minority views. 1)You're adding a statement of opinion right next to academic studies.

2)the "famous" book cannot be easily verified, and 3)you're adding that into the lead and the body as it was the most important statement in the article. Please stop. Likeminas (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not give any reason to remove the sourced information. It's not a book of personal opinions, it's a book from a scholar. If you don't like the ideas from the book, this is your personal problem. Be carefull with neutrality. Opinoso (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that it is not that I don't like it. Ribeiro is a politician, writer and several other things, and that's fine because that's not the point. The point is that a reliable encyclopedia cannot give statements of opinion the same weight and place as genetic studies on the ethnography of a country. It's simply not academic nor encyclopedic.Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't own the article. Stop acting like you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.38.174 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He is telling you not to be so bloody racist and ignore the obvoius fact that most Chileans, however do not look like Europeans, even Spaniards, have have some Amerindian ancestry in them. If you have an issue that most Chileans AREN'T pure Whites, with blond hair and blue eyes, either leave Chile, if you live there or fine a more White country to be obsessed with!!!86.160.120.47 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't you bring this discussion to a higher level? Chiton magnificus (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on sourcing

I don't have an opinion on whether the edit war is POV-pushing or whatever, but the so-called citations in the article are utterly unacceptable for an encyclopedia. See WP:CITE for how to cite sources. A bare link to google books does not count as a citation, and indeed deep linking google books is even discouraged because of potential copyright concerns. Please make an effort to properly source the article, including a clear identification of author, publisher, and publication date, just as you would provide in any other academic writing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. The sources clearly need some formating. But the part of linking to Google books doesn't seem to be correct. Wikipedia clearly does not discourage links to Google books, if it did it probably wouldn't provide citations templates such as this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Google_books Likeminas (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Deep linking to Google books is somewhat of a grey area from the point of view of Wikipedia's copyright policy, but this isn't the place to discuss the matter. A more obvious objection to google books links is that they also expire after a few weeks or months. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

The current lead section is very, very poor. This needs to be remediated. here I propose some things I think should be included in the lead.

• "Chilean people" as such appeared definitively as an identity after independence. Before that society was divided in indians mestizos and creoles. Indians did not identified as "Chileans" nor most creoles that considered themselves spaniard (see the definition of criollo). This change was gradual. Is this reasonable? Then there should be source to back this.

• Chilean people are considered part of the greater Latin American family, althoght it is often alledged that Chile has closer bonds (both in culture and ancestry) to Europe than most Latin American countries.

• The two single groups whose incomplete mix made first Chileans were Spaniards and Araucanians (Mapuche+Huilliche+Picunche).

• European immigration had a high cultural and economic impact in Chile. In terms of ancestry they are signifanct on a quite local scale. Due to mix/dilution there are nowadays 100 of thousans persons of German, Italian and Palestinian ancestry. However the bulk of genetic contribution is from Colonial Spaniads and Ameridians.

• Etnicity/Race is highyl associated with socioeconomic possition in Chile (in such degrees that when speaking about a socioeconomic groups its ancestry is inderectly deduced).

I also want to argue that this article is not solely about blood bonds and genetics, but also about self-identity and as such a genetic studies should not have any preference above self-identity studies.Dentren | ^Talk 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

remove the false information, if the majority of Chileans were half Indian, half Spanish, the genetic studies not defenirian a white majority of 60% to 64% of the population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I hve never wrote that there is a 1:1 relation in Spanish-Ameridian ancestry. What I have wrtoe is that Spanish and Native American are the two (not nessesarily equal) largest ancestries of the Chilean people. Dentren | ^Talk 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dentren write: the majority of Chileans were mestizos (Indian and Spanish ancestry), genetic studies would not give a white majority 60% to 64%, what you write is inconsistent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Studies on the racial and ethnic structure of Chile are non-conclusive and vary significantly from one study to another." Isn't that the first sentence of the article? Dentren, and for that matter anyone else, has a right to add sourced information in a topic that is so widely open. As long as the information is brought up as a separate point of view (that is, unless there is a majority of sources confirming one point over the other), it's all good.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dentren I agree with most of what you say. This article was getting bombarded on one side from the people that think (or want to think) that Chile is 90% white, and on the other side from people that want to make Chile look almost like an Amerindian nation. That's why; some balance should be applied either way.

Now, and while I agree that not only genetic studies should be used, other sources that are based mostly (or in the case of Ribeiro entirely) in opinion and/or observations, should not be put at the same level of the scientifically conducted studies. Not at least if we want to make an article that meets scholarly standards.

anyway thanks for intervening, your approach always comes across as that of someone reasonable and willing to find common ground.Likeminas (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead improvement

The text here below was added to give an overview of Chilean people in lead. User 186.36.24.47 reverted this 2 times claiming that Dentren write: the majority of Chileans were mestizos (Indian and Spanish ancestry), genetic studies would not give a white majority 60% to 64%, what you write is inconsistent and explains that he remove[d] the false information, [because] if the majority of Chileans were half Indian, half Spanish, the genetic studies not defenirian a white majority of 60% to 64% of the population

User 186.36.24.47 seems not to be understanding what was writen in the lead because to have both Amerindian and Spanish ancestry does not means nesesarily to be a mestizo (no One-drop rule here). For example a person of 85% Spanish ancestry and 10% ameridian will have these two as his largest ancestry groups, without nessesarily falling into a mestizo category. Just to repeat the same argument is is never said in the lead that Chileans are half-half Spansih and ameridians. Here is a copy of the lead so you can corroborate it.

Chilean people are mainly of Amerindian and Spanish descent with small but signicant 19th and 20th European immigrant ancestry. There is strong correlation between Chileans peoples ancestry and socioeconomic situation, existing in the society a smooth continuum between the lower classes of high amerindian ancestry and the upper classes of mainly European ancestry. Chilean people share a relatively homogeneous culture, mostly inherited from Spain. Althought post independence immigrants never made up more than 2% of the population there is now 100 of thousands Chileans with German, French, Croatian, Italian and Palestinian ancestry. Chile has been traditionally an immigrant country, but since the 1973 coup d'etat a large number of Chileans have settled in Canada, Sweden and Australia among other coutries.

-Dentren | ^Talk 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would just change the countries at the bottom as per the figures displayed on the sidebar. i.e: A large number of Chileans have settled in Argentina and The United States among other countries Likeminas (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, let me know what you think. Likeminas (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I found an interesting book online that can be used in this article. A history of Chile By Anson Uriel Hancock Starts at page 372. Chile of Today; The people of Chile. Likeminas (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas

1_Likeminas where are the sources of your writing?, You also added information without references as the user: Opinoso.

2_The most important are genetic studies, after the formation of Chile in its history.

3_It's rude to change the whole basis of an article, when you're trying to reach a consensus.

4_So back to the original information of the article, you can argue the case with an administrator of Wikipedia. It is also responsible to stop the vandalism.

5_Likeminas writes without sources and does not respect the discussion of consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the sourcing. Please allow sometime. Thanks Likeminas (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:186.36.24.47 I would recomend you to adress thing under their respective topics, not under "Likeminas", this might looks more like a personal attack. On "Lead imporvementt (continuation)" I adress some of your question. If you want to speak solely to likeminas he has an own talk page user_talk:Likeminas.Dentren | ^Talk 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead imporvementt (continuation)

On the sources, Im working to source the lead. If you find somethind there that contradicts a reliable source you are welcome to challange. Not being sourced is not alone a reason to remove material from wikipedia. Dentren | ^Talk 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On contentious articles is highly advisable to have sources. So let's focus on that for the time being. Likeminas (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you access this? I can not. I'm not sure I think here the ethnicity and socioeconomics are explained. I wrote a paper about it a long time ago, maybe this is. "Composición genética de la población chilena. Distribución de polimorfismos de DNA … P Paola Rocco, G Carmen Morales, V Mauricio … - Rev. méd. Chile, 2002 - SciELO Chile ... Ethnic groups; Gene frequency; Genetic markers; Genome ... Facultad de Medicina - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. ... del estrato socioeconómico 30"

Dentren | ^Talk 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not working but I've seen it before. Look at this one.Likeminas (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I sourced what I could with it. and added a citation. In general terms the paper seems to support the lead (I mean the "good" one not users 1838383 lead) but we must be carefull to not do WP:OR. Dentren | ^Talk 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

I've found some other sources that might used for this article, and can be easily verified by anyone as they're fully viewable online and are written in English:

• Peoples of the Americas, Volume 4 By Patrick Gray Starts on page 175. It's limited preview so some crucial info is not there, but there's other that can be useful.

• Chile and her people of today: an account of the customs, characteristics ... By Nevin Otto Winter Starts on page 191.

• Who's a Chilean? The Mapuche, the Huaso and the Roto as the basic symbols of Chilean collective identity by Mario Sznajder

This book, as the title suggests, touches more on the Chilean identity as a whole rather than the genetic make-up of the population. The article was a lot more potential for development on the cultural and identity aspects of the Chilean people rather than pure demographics. After all there's a separate article just for that. What do you think?

I'll keep looking for more sources. Likeminas (talk) 23:41, 24

November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Chilean people

Uff, Im strudgling with the definition.. How is Chilean poeple defined?

• All those that identifies as such by themselves or other
• All those that fullfils the requiments to be Chilean by Chilean law
• All those that have Chilean culture
• All those share parts of the Chilean "genetic pool"
• All those that have no other mayor ethnic affiliation
• All those that ancestry ancestry of somebody that qualies as Chilean by some of the abov ementioned definitions

or none of them? Dentren | ^Talk 04:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

--186.36.24.47 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Dentren, the first heading to the Chilean people is more appropriate to the article, plus more neutral and not take part either by genetic studies that give a majority white or mixed ancestry for the majority of Chileans what is stated in ethnic and social structure(like all Latin America) which should not be named x genotype.

Since we're refering to the country of Chile, in my view, defining who’s a Chilean should be in accordance to what the country defines it to be one of its own.

For starters; There’s no such a thing as Chilean genes or Chilean race, since a Chilean person can be of any ethnic origin.

A child born abroad to a Chilean parent, grants that child of Chilean citizenship regardless of wether that child will consider himself or herself Chilean. The same goes for Amerindians, they're born in what today is Chile, therefore, before the eyes of the law they're Chilean. Identity is another issue here...

The cultural thing is a bit trickier, but does not neccesarily play a crucial role in defining who's a Chilean.

Could a foreigner (not yet naturalized) who has adopted the Chilean culture be considered a Chilean? Legally no. Socially, maybe yes. Maybe not.

On the other hand, could a Chilean citizen who has lived abroad for most of his life and has adopted the culture of the host country still be considered Chilean?

Legally yes, and socially very likely. Likeminas (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On why User:186.36.24.47's lead is not appropiate

Well 186.36.24.47's lead is as following:

Chilean people are those born in the territory of Chile, the children of Chileans serving the country abroad or children of a Chilean father or mother who have resided in the country for more than one year, and foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers. Although most Chileans live in Chile there are significant communities in Argentina and the United States among other countries.

Nationality and ethnicity are different. This article is about Chilean peoples ethnicity, not about nationality. Even if Chilean ethnicity is composite "multiracial" and "multiethnic" it differs from nationality. A person granted Chilean nationality will not automatically become Chilean, who does not see the difference? User:186.36.24.47's lead belong in a Chilean nationality law article so why dont put this there to improve that article? Dentren | ^Talk 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced that lead, and I did so beucause I thought it was somewhat generic and would cover more material (such as ethnicity) that is further explained in the body of the article. I'm now confused. The note at the very top of the article says Demographics of Chile deals more heavily with ethnicity, but now this one too? do we need duplicate information? and if ethnicity should be the main focus, (assuming we want an article of encyclopedic quality) shouldnt we give more weight to the scientific views (studies) than the observations of certain people? Likeminas (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the information from the previous lead was extracted from the article 'who's a chilean? linked above. Likeminas (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had not read the changes, I apologize. The lead looks good now. I also wanted to mention that if it gets reverted by an IP, we might want to consider page a protection request. Likeminas (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mestization section

That section should be ranamed, Chilean people according to Ribeiro as it relies entirely on a single book that 1) is inaccesible, 2)it is not in English and 3)contrdicts most of the other sections, including the lead. Likeminas (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand what exactly you refer to. I do thik the article must explain this racial-ethnic-social process, so readers can understand specifically how Chilean mestization was. You dont hold Ribeiro high, but he is indeed right, just look at reference no 3 (Valenzuela) and you will se that the sentences attributed to Ribeiro are corroborated by genetics. Ribeiro is just repeating things. Of course because Ribeiro is repeting things hes not the best source, but there are not many authors that speaks about "socio-genetics". If you feel that the user (Opinoso) who added it is not to trust I can not opose to remove it. Opinoso knows potuguese, of course not for nothing he got blocked but it is very hard to me believe he is inventing sources or sourcing things that are not in the book.Dentren | ^Talk 22:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

should be removed from article by chilean people, the introduction and the subsection on racial mixing, for they both feel "for sources that are in the actual article (ethnic structure) that signal or indicate that the majority of the population is white chili not mixed .- —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAntarcticwik (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Noatable Chileans pictures

As it has been said before, having three socialists/communists (Bachelet, Salvador Allende and Neruda) is not a balanced representation of the Chilean people. It also breaks the 50/50 women to men ratio. Likeminas (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I created this image to put it on the top of the infobox. I have already changed it, but know it would be nice to agree which picture should be there. I think this one is the bestv one we have for now, because it is "more less" representative; shows young and old, darky (moreno) and blond, urban and rural, women and men and also the expatirates Chileans in the photo at the bottom. So what is the your opinion? Can we agree on putting a warning text, this (<--!) that appear wen you are editing, warning that changes in images without consensus in the talk page may be reverted, just to do it easier to counter image-pushs. ? Dentren | ^Talk 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice picture Dentren. I personally wouldn't mind keeping it. The picture does a good job at representing the spectrum of Chilean faces. Likeminas (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi all there. Please don't remove the pic of the Chilean family, it represents poor families in the country. --MisterWiki talk contribs 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:A common Chilean family in the eighties.jpg

The problem is that the immigration and ethnicity sections are not good places for that picture. A picture placed under a section should be directly related to it.

I should also add that a picture representing the poor might not be good at all, since less than 20% of Chileans are actually poor. Where are the pictures representing the rich and middle class?

I think the picture could go in the gallery, but I'm not much of a fan of galleries. And it seems neither is Wikipedia. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY Likeminas (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do also think the picture does not fit in the article as it it know, perhaps in the "gallery" section (which I now regret I created).. I think is a good picture, but for another picture, maybe in Demographics of Chile. Abput that the argument that "20% of Chileans are poor", this per government standarts, and is not obvius this picture represent that minority. Even that case, 20% is good enought. But I think the first argument of Likeminas is good the article needs style and coherence. Dentren | ^Talk 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

emphasis on racial mixing

Should be removed from article by chilean people, the introduction and the subsection on Mestization, for they both feel "for sources that are in the actual article (ethnic structure) that signal or indicate that the majority of the population is white Chile not mixed .- --NewAntarcticwik (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree iwth you in that we should perhaps put less emphasis on "racial mixing" because that is not the ways things are currently seen in Chile. This however does not mean that the infomation on "Meztizaton" section should be removed. We should perhaps add add that this process was asymetric with few indians and meztisos being incorporated into society at time, thus despite being matyority at the arrival of the Spaniards at the end the mayority of Chileans are of hispanic culture with more Spanish ancestry than indian. Now, if you can find souces for this we add it. Dentren | ^Talk 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The phenotype is not what defines "fully" the ethnic composition of a collective, is a mix of cultural, linguistic and biological. That is one reason why the Chilean government makes no ethnic differentiation in the population, despite the variety (phenotype) that may exist, when considered as a homogeneous population, with the exception of recognition of the peoples originating (other people - ethnicity - not another race, another phenotype). From a biological standpoint, human beings are all mestizos, because we are the result of genetic mixing, which is why the concept of "race" was displaced in academic debates, and is considered wrong. --Ccrazymann (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Basic Clarifications

Before proceeding we must clarify some inaccuracies. 1 ° The study of the CIA does not exist, so there is data presented in CIA World Factbook, whereby 95% of Chile's population would be white or mestizo. 2 ° According to 2002 Census data. The INE, which is the only objective source of statistics in Chile makes no differentiation by "phenotype" of the population chilean ( fewer degrees of miscegenation), only questions the membership of Native Peoples, as is considered the people of Chile as a "culturally homogenous group". 3 ° The group "White" and "Mestizo" in Chile did not exist as such, ie, the population chilean mostly white or mixed, but not configured as "groups" or "communities" Unlike countries like the U.S. (where if differentiation occurs between White, Black, Hispanic or Asian), this does not mean that many people feel part of a community of descendants of immigrants (Spanish, Germans, Italians, Croatians, Palestinian, etc.). regardless of their degree of miscegenation. 4 ° Beware of "study" of the University of Chile: a)[3] this is not a study, data are only used in a work called "Elements of Public Health [4] b) [5] were used Aymara samples and atacameños (based on linguistic criteria, cultural and geographical) for comparison with a sample of 162 people in Santiago (La Florida, Pirque, Independence, and Santiago), in consecuancia their results can not be used " for illustrate the ethnic composition of the Chileans. This for now. Greetings--Ccrazymann (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on what Ccrazymann said I think the artcle must make it clear that "mestizo", "criollo" and "white" are not communities in Chile and that the is of these terms is restricted to academic work and when refering to the colonial society.Dentren | ^Talk 12:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The ethnic classification (excluding indigenous peoples) the state in Chile does not perform classification for white, mixed or other, therefore there is no conclusive study (although from the standpoint of cultural, phenotypic, etc.), most studies show a "white majority" for the Chilean population. We also need to clarify some inaccuracies, as mentioned by some users and the creator of the gallery section. Wikipedia is not a fan of the galleries. See WP: NOTREPOSITORY therefore, propose to eliminate that section that you think?¿, and thus be better ordering article.

PD: This article is about Chilean people, ie about the ethnic and cultural characteristics, not the genetic component or on racial appearance of Chileans.--Ccrazymann (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I created the gallery section, but now I think it can be removed because there already a good image on the top of the page and to avoid image disputes. I can not agree with eliminating the content of the section mestization, I know in official Chilean statistics phenotype is not assested, but that does not imply there is no phenotypical differences. Articles on wikipedia should not be written from any countries viewpoint, so this article must be written from an "global" or "international" perspective and in that sence race and phenotype are important. However Im not fully comfortable with "meztization" section it should be included somewhere else (in otherv section(s)) or under another name. Dentren | ^Talk 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescuing the image and place it in an appropriate section, in addition to the section of "miscegenation" is full of contradictions, who has been identified by many users as "bad", taken from a book that can not be verified (or even if be verifiable, there are no reliable sources that give biological evidence to show that the main legacy of Chile is Spanish and Amerindian), remember that there are analysts who believe that 27% of the population of Chile is of Basque origin, and nearly 6% are of Arab descent, and so on. So I think this section needs a credible and verifiable sources.--Ccrazymann (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

by saying "27% of the population of Chile is of Basque origin" you are confusing one-drop ancestry with the bulk of the inheritance. Your "27% of the population of Chile is of Basque origin" should be compared with a 70-80 or more of the population of Chile that has amerindian ancestry and the 97 that has Spanish ancestry. You can remove anything that is of bad quality but you must agree by common reason and by the articles sources that the largest ancestry groups are Spanish and ameridnian. No? Dentren | ^Talk 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Immigration had an impact on Chile, so you will have millions of Chileans not necessarily of European/Amerindian descent alone and the huge contribution of non-Spanish Europeans have on the urban areas (i.e. Santiago, Valparaiso and the coasts) shown an Europeanization occurred in the 20th century. The country wasn't intensely settled until the late 1800's when the white Chileans subdued the Mapuches whom long avoided encroachment by the Spanish and then Chilean governments in the Central Valley of Chile. In other words, most of the full-blood Mapuche and white Chilean settlers usually didn't associate nor intermarry each other at the time period. White Chileans may have a significant degree of Amerindian blood, plus the skin color identification where some of the Mapcuhe tribes were tannish-skinned from the climatological location (i.e. sunlight, temperatures, latitude, elevation, genetic adaptation and reaction) would blended in with another lighter-skinned race. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Collage

I have done a collage of Chilean People. It is better than the current one. It is:

--MisterWiki talk contribs 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at German people, by example, they include photos of their most famous people, like the Pope or Claudia Schiffer. That's why I tried to do these collages. --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is better than the current one? Dentren | ^Talk 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Wiki, your behaviour causes me concern. Tell me why you changed the image of the page with this edit summary Replacing Pic, see talk page (making it more similar to other ones like German people)?? The is clearly no accord, so why do you change the picture. Second saying that "its a better image" not a valid argument, you need to explain why its a better image. If you see the German people talk page you can see that there is discussion ongoing on wich picture should be there. Why should Chileans picture be of the same type as the Germans picture? Articles are independet from each other, not bacause some thing is that way in one article it should be so in other and even less when that thing is under dispute/discussed in that article. I would recomend you next time to discuss things to the end before doing changes that may be disputed.

Now I will explains why Chilenos_varios.jpg is the better of the two pictures.

1. It shows ordinary people. Very few Chileans are famous actors, sportsmen and politicians.
2. Showing famous writers, militaries and politicians will tend to overepresent Chilean of high levels of European ancestry.
3. Chileans are both rural and urban, young and old, white and morenos, women and men, lives outside and inside Chile and some belong to traditional rural/indigenous groups. Well all these things are present in Chilenos_varios.jpg. Dentren | ^Talk 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
4. The two pictures in the bottom left of Collage Chilean People.jpg are far to small no faces can be divised
5. to represent traditional communites the Carahuinos of Chilenos_varios.jpg are far better than the wife of rich lonco hundred years ago, how many mapuche women dress like that?
6. To have two pictures of people from Pichilemu is not a good idea. Why Pichilemmu two? Dentren | ^Talk 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I will create another with photos of common people. Just wait. ;D--MisterWiki talk contribs 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wiki you were doing a good job, until, you strated pushing pictures of your family on the articles of Chilean people. Wikipedia is not a family photo album. You're not improving the article by doing that, so please stop. And please do discuss these changes prior to making them and try to form some kind of consensus instead. Thank you. Likeminas (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, just the family in the photo of Plaza Arturo Prat in Pichilemu is my family. The other pics I've taken anywhere I went to. --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I vote Option 3. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Coment; remeber you Wikipedia is not a democracy, its not enought to express preference without giving any reason behind.Dentren | ^Talk 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is: I added my grandfather image because it needed another pic. Just that. About the collage itself, em, it represents too much people than Dentren collage. It have of all social classes persons. Not just poor people or comunists or whatever else. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Option 4, by the reasons explained above. Dentren | ^Talk 20:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Option 4 Why? Because I like the picture of the conglomeration of people, lots of un-staged faces. I guess this is a subjective matter, but option 4 just seems more aesthetically fit.

By the way, Mr. Wiki is not mentioning that the option he's voting for has pictures of his family. Like the "old man" whom he acknoledges on his user page to be his grandfahter. Conflict of interest perhaps? Likeminas (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: When I criticeised no 1 he immediately proposed 2 more, which makes mi think MrWiki is a little bit to eager to replace the current picuture with one of his. He did never criticized the curret picture before he started to propose new ones.Dentren | ^Talk 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to say is that is not about your picture, is about the variety of people in that photos, the one you posted have just 3 types of people. Don't take it as something personal :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the infobox's image because Dentren's image is a copyvio. --MW talk contribs 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss here the image of the collage. Do not simply remove it. Also leave me a {{talkback}} message on my talk so I can check the talk. Thanks. --MW talk contribs 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to point out that it's possible to have a collage of images appear without making an actual separate collage image; see for example Greek American where they just place the images separately into the infobox. This would not necessarily solve the dispute, but it might make it easier if the disagreement is over one single image rather then the whole collage to just swap that out without having to create a whole new image. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article has been currently a recurrent point of vandalism. I requested a WP:RPP for the page, so just autoconfirmed users can edit it. It will prevent the content removal, unless it is done from a trusted user. :) --MW talk contribs 19:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The user wrote in my talk:

Te escribo en castellano, por que se que eres chileno, y encuentro absurdo que entre chilenos nos comuniquemos en ingles. las modifficaciones que he ehcho de l articulo Chilean People, no son mas que hacer volver al articuloa su estructura originaria, la que matuvo por mas de un año, antes que llegaran un grupo de editores con sesgos proindeginistas y latinoamericanistas, que desconoceindo los `yultimos estudiso geneteicos efectuados por la U. de Chile, y el completisimo estudio del Proffesor LIZCANO de la UNAM, insisten en presentar a Chile como un pais mestizo , tipicamente latinoamericano, violentando con ello las fuentes estipuladas en el mismo articulo, haciendolo contradictorio. Este animus vandalico llega al extremo de colocar puras fotografias de gente pobre, al contrario de lo que se hace en otros articulos similares sobre grupos etnicos, en que colocan como era en un principio , solo gente notable del grupo etnico en cuestiòn.- Oye estos son los mismos editores que en la seccion economia del articulo sobre Chile, insisten en colocar a nuestro pais con un porcentaje de 20 % de extrema pobreza, sin recurrir a ffuente alguna , tal como lo hacen en el tema etnico en que solo se basan en un simpel mapa de otro articulo de wikipedia sobre un tal Riberiro.- Oye es increible apreciar como los argentinos de diversas ideologias incluso los de izquierda magnifican su herencia europea, mientras los chilenos de izquierda desconcoeuindo las fuentesdel propio articulo la minimizan de mala fe , provocando un fuerte daño a nuestra imagen, te lo digo por que yo trabajo en el rubro viniticola, y por Dios que los argentinos le sacan el jugo a su europeiadad , para aventajarnos en el concepto de imagen o marca pais cuando compiten con nuestros productos.- Saludos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.53.131 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed section lead, according to the article

The previous header spoke only of ethnic groups and mixtures of these groups among the Chilean population, omitting the primary purpose of the article, the Chilean Culture, as his identity (which does not mean ethnic classification or segmentation according to their ethnicity or origin). Therefore propose this header:

"Chilean people are those born in the [[territory]] of [[Chile]], the children of Chileans serving the country abroad or children of a Chilean father or mother who have resided in the country for more than one year, and foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers. Although most Chileans live in Chile there are significant [[communities]] in [[Argentina]] and [[United States]] among other countries."

--Ccrazymann (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal belong in the Chilean nationality article. Chilean people is independent of Chilean nationality law. Chilean people is a collective ethnic group defined on the basis of territory (similar but not identical to the definition of Chilean nationality), that I would say is a more correct aproach for this article. Now, this should be formulated in the lead section. Dentren | ^Talk 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Race"

Are "minimum" are differences in human DNA from different groups ethnic: Blacks, Caucasians, Mongoloids and Amerindians are not enough to talk about "races" in the same way as in animals and plants, thus change the label of "race" by "ethnic group."--Ccrazymann (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

what an ugly picture collage

esthetically it doesn't look good and from what I see from the comments above there's a user using family pictures. it's a disgrace.

somebody please change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.25 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The last picture, in the bottom, is from my grandpa. That's the only picture of my family, because I had to add another one. --MW talk contribs 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

what makes you think you can use wikipedia as a family photo album?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.71 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to post positive things about the article, please keep quiet. Thanks. --MW talk contribs 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The criticism is constructive, although maybe not civil. But as the talk page guidelines say, talk pages aren't for only "positive things", they're to be used to "discuss changes to its associated article". The IP is saying he believes the collage should be changed; because he/she is a reader, we should listen! Mm40 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the collage has been changed 3 times in 2 days. One was deleted, the other one (the one that the IP alludes) was changed by the last one. I can't do anything more. --MW talk contribs 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps people can decide:

• whether they want fewer, larger photos within a single illustration, or more, smaller photos
• whether they want Chileans who are representative because they are eminent, or Chileans who are representative because they are normal
• whether the photos should be newish, or newish and old, or old

Once you've got that sorted out you can post the suggested ingredients, or links to these.

Alternatively, people can post their own combinations, or links to these. And others can comment on the combinations or their ingredients.

I'm acting as an admin here and so don't propose to make my own specific comments. But if I did make them and if I were in Chile, I might say something like:

I like your option X, but I think that photos Y and Z within it are weak: Y because of A and Z because of B. I think I can take a photo to replace Y over the weekend. The couple are friends of mine (which is how I can photograph them). Of course I don't want to push my friends into Wikipedia, and so I invite anyone else here to do a better job, and of course also to replace Z.

Incidentally, if the people photographed both look Chilean and are credibly claimed to be Chilean, I don't think it matters at all whether they are the friends or relatives of one or more editors here. -- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"looking chilean" is not easy to define. there are chileans that could pass as northern european and others that look amerindian. so adding pictures of unknown people would leave us trusting the editor who adds them even if they're actually not chilean.

i suggest we use pictures of several famous people covering proportionally their representation of the population.

that is 3 pictures of mestizos (ie; ivan zamorano, isabel allende and pablo neruda) 1 amerindian (a goverment minister whose name i don't recall right now) and 2 european decendent (bachelet and someone else).

the names don't neccesarily have to be those mentioned above, but the concept remains. because it's preferable to use famous or known people since that gives assurance that those are actual chilean and also erases any doubt of procedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.43 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article protected

There seems to be an edit war going on. I therefore protected the article. I did so for three days, but I'm ready to extend the protection if necessary.

Now, please discuss the dispute here. Please be persuasive. Persuasiveness does not come from an increased number of exclamation points. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above section. That's the only dispute there is. A IP claims that the photo collage they constantly removed appeared my family. Please revert these edits. Thanks. --MW talk contribs 04:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a dispute. You seem to be saying "There is one dispute and my opponents are wrong and I am right. So unprotect the article and do what's necessary to let me have my way." In a word, no. Discuss the matter here with your opponents. When you have an agreement, or when it's very clear that one party is merely being obstructive, then the article can be unprotected. -- Hoary (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture selection

If MrWiki accept I would like him to create a collage picture based on an agreement in this page. The few editors that have been engaged in the picture debate here seems to prefer a collage of non-notable representatives but without "personal touches" (images of non-notables known by the creator or from his hometown).

Now to create that can we agree on having:

• Old and young people

Support - Chileans and all peoples have both old and young individuals.Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fair haired persons

Support - But only some few Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Both men and women

Agree - Hopefully in equal numbers but if a "best picture selection" means to have slightly less men or women let it be so. Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Traditional communities

Agree - but they would need to be everyday pictures and not would like to Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Historic pictures/paintings

Agree - As the articles large section on the ethnic history reflect, history is escential to understand the current diversity and homogeniety of Chileans Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Expatriates

Agree - with such large colonies in Argentina and the US they must be represented Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Immigrants

Agree to have one or only very few to not bias the article Dentren | ^Talk 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you just could link to a image, obviously not copyvio, I happy will create the collage. --MW talk contribs 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

im sorry but i don't agree. adding pictures of unknows leave us trusting the editor who adds them. how can we know the unknows are actually chilean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.43 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there sombody you dont trust? MrWiki have been very honest in declaring the procedence of the pictures. And I dont think the "fear of missuse" is a valid argument in selecting pictures, see WP:AGF. Dentren | ^Talk 21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this user is mad about that one of the photos included in the 2nd collage is from my family, totally untrue. [6]. --MW talk contribs 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, the only collage that included a personal photo was Image:Collage Chilean People 3.jpg (a photo of my grandfather). That's all. I don't know the point that this IP is recurrently claiming that my collages are ugly. I'm starting to think that this is something personal against me. --MW talk contribs 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

i assume good faith, but it's not only about that dentren. it's about reliability. a well known chilean, regardless of ethnic origin, will give us that. please remember pictures are not exempt of that wikipedia requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.43 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

besides my proposal above is not unreasonable. i don't want only european looking people, i want a representative collage. but more importantly i want a reliable one. with chileans everybody can say they are chileans.

Your proposal is a little bit hard. But someone said Las imágenes hablan por sí solas --MW talk contribs 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

what makes it hard? im sorry but i dont understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.43 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We have something special that makes us different from the rest. If I could add photos of Chilean people, you should identify them inmediately. --MW talk contribs 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How precisely? how can you diffentiate from a peruvian or agentinian mestizo from a Chilean mestizo? I confess i can't differentiate them. and the claim about us, chileans being especiall i hope it is a joke because it makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.43 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you like some picture particularly, add it to the gallery:

• I think this mestizo should be included. --~~~~
  I think this mestizo should be included. --~~~~

--MW talk contribs 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

190.110.155.43, I don't say I completely agree with your assertion that only well-known Chileans can indisputably be Chileans, but it's not an unreasonable assertion. So I suggest that you take it seriously and point MW and other readers here to a selection of suitable copyleft (GFDL or CC) or public-domain images, at "Commons" or elsewhere, of eminent Chileans. As it is, my impression is that MW is doing most of the work hereabouts: others criticize his work (with or without justification), but they give him little help with it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An unexpected twist now, as MW has been blocked indefinitely. (Note that "indefinitely" need not mean "for ever".) But this needn't invalidate what I say above. If you other people want other pictures, precisely what other pictures do you want? -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was unblocked today, and I want to give my help :P --MW talk contribs 21:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos for a collage

This are pictures proposed for a non notable collage. I recomend to cut and paste the faces, so we get a face collage. If the collage shows "actions" then the subpictures will to small to see what they are doing in the picture.

• 
  Traditional community from Carahue
• 
  Historic picture of the rural population
• A university student
  A university student
• 
  Chilean police
• 
  Women in a comedor común
• 
  A man taking a bus
• Some huasos
  Some huasos
• 
  People on Pasaeo Ahumada
• Some blond Chilean girls
  Some blond Chilean girls
• 
  In fron of Pinochet there are some photographers
• 
  Metrotren people in Rancagua
• 
  Historic picure of a cueca dance

Dentren | ^Talk 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some of these can be used too.

• Some faces can be cut from this picture.
  Some faces can be cut from this picture.
• 
  A group of Damas de Rojo, volunteers in their local hospitals

I didn't posted the ones that commonly the IPs claims to be my family, anyways, these are good pictures. --MW talk contribs 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good.. be carefull only in not putting more than 1 (or 2) pichilemu-people pictures that will make any collage vulnerable for attacks. Then if we agree on showing non-notables i would object the use of Fabricio Caceres pitures, because he is identiefied by his name and because of the image quality. I hope you dont mind.. Dentren | ^Talk 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be useful instead of Fabricio Cáceres one.

--MW talk contribs 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

besides the policeman how do you guys know those are Chileans?

Ancestral and ethnic composition: What a pathetic joke

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are we putting up with this cr*p? Someone step in already! Where are the Administrators?????

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

I am going to insert into this article the version of ancestral and ethnic structure of Chile currently on the corrected Chile and Demographics of Chile pages, which as it now stands, in it's current edition, does correctly represent the sources, a few with direct quotes.

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

As a DNA study last year showed, conquistadors slaughtered Latin America's men and took their women. DNA was taken from "unrelated people from 13 populations of Mestizoes - people from a mixed European/native American origin - in seven countries from Chile in the south to Mexico in the north." "The biggest native American element found in DNA today was found to be in areas which had denser populations before the Spanish conquistadors and other colonists arrived in the late 15th Century." "These include regions of the Andes mountain range and cities such as Mexico City". Al-Andalus (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. To answer the question you pose with five question marks, as it happens I am an administrator, although I can't immediately see the relevance of this. You refer to "sh*t", "cr*p", etc. I am unfazed by "shit", "crap" etc spelled out. On the other hand I'm also unimpressed by them and I am not going to use my "bloody time" to do anything. (Time, maybe; bloody time, no.) Please rephrase yourself as coolly and with as little capitalization and mention of body fluids as you can; I shall then be much more inclined to give you a careful and sympathetic reading.

As for whoever is in an edit war with you, I shan't pay any attention to their point of view until lucidly and coolly expressed here.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs here, any editor of this article had better think very hard about "3RR". -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was talking with fustration at the situation that has been allowed to go on for so long. And please excuse my Australian vocabulary, but "bloody" is quite a common and non-offensive term of interjection in Austalian parlance, heard even in our parliament. But this is besides the point. I have not made personal attacks and the essence of my comment is self-evident. And yes, I admit, it was full of frustration and colourful language, but in no way offensive, at least where I'm from. Perhaps it could be because of a difference in cultural language use, and to you it was offensive, so if that's the case, that you took offense, I'm sorry for that.

It reminds me of the Lara Bingle "So where the bloody hell are you?" Australian government tourism campaign abroad which Britons and Americans got in a twist over because they are unfamiliar with our language peculiarities down here. I grant you, our tourism ministry should've taken our culturo-lingual differences with the USA and Britain into consideration. And perhaps I should have too. But at the end of the day, the audience too, in that situation, must ultimately look at the intent and motive and move past it. Especially if it has been clarified, which is what the Australian government did for the US and Britain after the uproar, and which I am now doing for you.

Having said that, if despite my effort in this message, you still refuse to act, then I'm sorry to say, but you are also complicit in the vandalization of all the pages in question. After all, the contetion you have voiced in regards to my post is, per se, irrelevant to the issue raised regarding the article and the misrepresentation of the sources. Refusal to intervene by you, or any other administrator, is therefore unwarranted. Thank you. Al-Andalus (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't bloody mind at all about blood, crap, and shit. I just want to know what's going on, simply.

You refer to Cruz-Coke and Moreno, "Genetic epidemiology of single gene defects in Chile". Its abstract tells us At present the Chilean population is approximately 64% white and 35% Amerindian with traces of other admixture. The article in its entirety (PDF file) says little more about this, but does add the paraphrase The Chilean population is grossly two-thirds white and one-third Amerindian admixture. During the last century immigrants never exceeded 4% of the population.2 Black and Asiatic admixture is extremely low.

Putting aside the context etc, I suppose that there are two imaginable ways to read this:

1. 64% (by number) of the people of Chile are white; 35% are Amerindian.
2. 64% of the ancestry of the people of Chile (considered as a whole) is white; 35% is Amerindian.

Let's take the former seriously for a moment. If one "white" person and one "Amerindian" mate and produce kids, what would those kids be? Race being a social construct, they could be considered, and/or could consider themselves, "white", "Amerindian", or a mixture thereof. But no matter how strong the social pressures might be toward whiteness or Amerindianness, it beggars belief that a society could consist of 64% by number of one "race", 35% by number of a second, and 1% of (a) mixtures of these two plus (b) anybody else.

Ergo, that first reading is absurd. And I haven't even got into the absurdity of thinking that an article accepted by J Med Genet would describe a population according to a crude sociological taxonomy.

Meanwhile, I see nothing absurd about the second reading. And thus I infer:

So 64% of the ancestry of the people of Chile (considered as a whole) is white; 35% is Amerindian.

In its current state, the article is last edited by NewAntarcticwik (contributions), whose edit summary charges: removing vandalism changes Andalus, who vandalized the genetic information of the CRUZ-COCKE University of Chile, noting that the white population of Chile is 64% and ethnic LIZCANO report UNAM. NewAntarcticwik has the article say Another genetic study of the University of Chile, found a white majority that would exceed 60% to 64% of the Chilean population.[14][15] Here, no.14 is this paper by Cruz-Coke and Moreno; 15 is an unspecified page of a book published 22 years ago. This looks to me like, at best, a misunderstanding of what Cruz-Cocke and Moreno wrote. It's also a curiously bellicose edit summary. I have asked NewAntarcticwik to explain himself. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of ancestory has expanded to the article Chilean American. It would be helpful if all editors with an opinion can opine on that article as well. I've begun a section in it's Talk page--Work permit (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to laugh at yet another practican joke, read the article 'English people' that says that the English are no longer descended from the Anglo-Saxons, which definately is laughable as the subsequent European immigration has been rather small compared to the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasion, have have been added to the Anglo-Saxon mix. What is most laugable I find is the fact that just because you were born and are living in England, you are automatically English!!!! Well,,,,, it is well know that an ethnic group is a group of people SHARING the SAME culture, history, and to a lesser extent, probably no longer aplicable, ancestry. Well, if you continue practising a completely foereign culture to that of your host country, in this case Pakistanis in England or some of the German communities in southern Chile, than how can that include you in the English ethnic group. If they CHOSE to be English, then they would abandon or be more descreet with the culture of the country of origin and assimilate. Not even they, the Pakistanis in England consider themselves English, just British citizens, its those PC idiots who, thinking that they are doing them a favour, include everyone, where they are foreign (not assimilated into English culture) or not, into the English ethnic group, therefore insulting English people and devaluating the English cultural group in England.

I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but Chile's PC idiots want people to believe that most Chileans don't have a drop of Amerindian blood in them! The idiot misinterpreting the information you are talking about is either unaware, staying only in the posh neigbourhoods of the European Chileans, or has an issue that most Chileans are mestizos. Yes, I know that the Spanish part is slighty larger than the Amerindian part, but they definately don't look European, or Spanish for that matter. You only have to wander around the centres of Chilean cities to realise it.

Anyway, why do you Chileans want to look like Americans, or Australians or Europeans? You look Chilean, unique!!! The beauty of Chile is its uniqueness. And no you don't look Peruvian or Mexican either, just Chilean!!!

And I hope the people in charge of the Chilean media and modelling agencies see this as Chilean mestizo women are very beautiful, they have a special Chilean beauty you don't get in the European-descended girls you would rather have. Why not celebrate Chilean beauty and Chilean uniqueness.86.160.120.47 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

^^^^ What a pointless statement.

The fallacy of the whole 'demographic' argument lays in the fact that there is no clear difference between what is 'Ethnically Chilean' and what is 'Chilean'.

The 'Chilean ethnic group' as referred to by this article is wrong. Chileans, especially from 'Old Chile' or pre-Pacific war Chile are almost entirely compromised of a mixture of the various nationalities of Spanish Empire(principally Castillian, Andalusian, Catalan and Basque, as well as a variety of other Spanish Colonial subjects including Hispansized Palestinians and Southern Italians) and indigenous ancestry to varying degree's (from either Peru or Araucania) regions.

The latter influx of European immigration from non-Hispano nations such as Germans, Greeks, Swiss, Croats, French, Irish, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Israelis, Arabs (i.e. Syrians), Haitians, Cherokees, etc. are not of the 'Chilean ethnicity' but are 'Ethnic minorities in Chile'. As per example instance the difference between Mexican-Americans and Anglo-Americans, or the difference between Lebanese-Mexicans and ethnic-Mexicans. Also it should be covered that in a Modern context, many of the descendants of these ethnic minorities are in fact intermingled with the previously specified 'Chilean ethnic' group.

Statistics are questionable, as but the general consensus amongst the Chilean populate is that the 'Chilean ethnicity' compromises approximately 75% of the nation, which ethnic minorities compromising a further 15% of the nation, and self identified Amerindian groups constituting 5% of the national character. Foreign born permanent residents constitute approximately 5% of the nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.209.141 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Chile is a country built on not only indigenous peoples whom mixed with the Spaniards, the Chilean government established a program to invite immigrants: the number should be enough but significant to settle one of the least colonized provinces of South America, but the immigration altered the country's cultural fabric to this very day. The presence of non-Spanish Europeans in Central Chile is well known, because its' high development index is thought of to be a byproduct of another culture besides the declining Spanish empire, then again one should take note of the Inca Empire and other Meso-American civilizations in Chile has left behind much population. Chile is in the cultural boundary between European or "Euro-American" and Native "Indio" cultures of South America, thus the culture would be "light-skinned" mestizo or the impact of European culture dominated in Central Chile. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whose embassy, where?

In this edit, 190.21.28.192 objects to the preceding edit (whose summary is Is not the German embassy, is the chilean embassy in Germany ... in fact, is not a real research, look at teh web site, it's just an opinion unreferenced) and writes that The German Embassy in Chile estimated such and such, sourcing this to "German Embassy in Chile." The domain name is embajadaconsuladoschile.de. Let's look at www.embajadaconsuladoschile.de, shall we? Here's what it says (up on the top right): "Embajada de Chile en Alemania".

I don't claim to understand Spanish. But nevertheless I'll be arrogant for a moment and claim to understand this. Here's what it means: Embassy of Chile in Germany. (No, not German embassy in Chile, Chilean embassy in Germany.)

Or am I wrong?

There's a great amount of editing of this article by people who are not logged in. Some of these edits are good, some are bad, some (as above) are plain wrong. I'm starting to think that long-term semiprotection might be a good idea; then people who might otherwise add untruths would first have to think about what doing so would do to their good names. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The change is not totally wrong, the page is in German and Spanish languages you not probably know, the reference belongs to the Chilean consulate in Germany, corresponds to a state agency of Chile, therefore, a source entirely feasible and justified. (Wikipedia:RS)

• Well now if we use common sense, 500,000 - 600.000 Chilean of german origin not seem so far-fetched, if it colonized much of the south of that country with germans, only within the period of colonization arrived between 30,000 to 40,000 germans [7] [8], not counting those that settled in other parts of Chile, or those who arrived after this period, which was a greater immigration.

• Now let's see embedded fonts, the first source is not a "study" is a book that is made according to the perceptions of a tourist trip to southern Chile (only two regions) and sack its calculation (without saying where), thus no can be endorsed as a relevant source or secondary. (Wikipedia:RS). The second study discusses German immigration in some American countries, where some figures, which drew such as: 300,000 Argentines of German origin (against the same embassy where it 1,200,000 argentine of descendants of German) or 150.000- 200,000 Chileans of German descent (publication of 1993 when Chile was 12 million inh. under the same article), seems to be a more reliable source, but not decisive, to offset a source from the consulate of Chile. (which handles actual data entry of immigrants, births, etc.), and its calculation could be more successful.

• Hence, return to the original source of the article (see history), but the write up in a more clear. Ccrazymann (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Introducción del articulo

Creo que la introducción de este articulo está totalmente fuera de lugar. A mi parecer las 4 o 5 primeras palabras son introducción. El resto son puras cuestiones de raza/etnias que no debería estar en ese lugar. Para eso está la subdivisión "Ethnic structure of Chile" ¿¿no creen??. Espero que pronto sea cambiado por una introducción decente y también espero que este articulo parezca menos un blog de esos que abundan en donde sobran las opiniones personales y donde faltan las fuentes confiables. 16/03/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Barrera (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For a Chilean it might be unnesesarily to describe the origins of Chileans specially their relation to Europe and amerindian cultures and the racial and cultural spectrum of Chileans. But for those that are not Chileans nor latin americans is very valuable to clarify such things in the begining.Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Te entiendo, y estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo. Pero repito, en la introducción debe estar presente otro tipo de información que considero más relevante y mas ad-hoc al título de el artículo. Po ejemplo, quienes son considerados chilenos según la constitución:

Según la Constitución, son chilenos los nacidos en el territorio de Chile, excepto los hijos de extranjeros que se encuentren en el país en servicio de su gobierno y los hijos de extranjeros transeúntes; los casos anteriores podrán optar a la nacionalidad chilena.

Los hijos de padre o madre chilenos que se hallen al servicio de Chile en territorio extranjero, que se considerarán a todos los efectos como nacidos en territorio nacional.

Los hijos de padre o madre chilenos nacidos en territorio extranjero por el solo hecho de avecindarse por más de un año en Chile.

Los extranjeros que obtuvieren carta de nacionalización en conformidad a la ley, renunciando expresamente a su nacionalidad anterior. No se exigirá tal renuncia a los nacidos en país extranjero que, en virtud de un tratado internacional, conceda este mismo beneficio a los chilenos. Los nacionalizados en conformidad a este artículo podrán optar a cargos públicos de elección popular sólo después de cinco años de estar en posesión de sus cartas de nacionalización.

Este tipo de información no se encuentra y creo que debería ser discutida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Barrera (talk 17/marzo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiton magnificus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That info belongs in the Chilean nationality law article. The Chilean people existed before the nationality law so nationality law is not the sole, and not the primary definition for a Chilean. Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is erroneous, I do not agree with her. Ccrazymann (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationality≠Nationality law≠Ethnicity. Chilean people are an ethnic group (a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed- sharing cultural characteristics Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The picture Image:Chilenas.jpg is spammed x-wiki. Please remove it.

190.110.136.161 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done There was nothing wrong with the image; it occurred once. --Mikemoral♪♫ 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I agree the picture of the "Chilean Girls" should be removed.

For one, I don't know that those girls are in fact Chilean and not Australian or European wearing the national football jersey just for the picture. Wikipedia requires we verify statments and the caption on the picture claiming that they are chileans is unverified.

I will be removing the picture for that reason. In the case somebody comes up with a source that for the caption, I will be more than happy to re-insert it myself. Likeminas (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. I think we also have enought caucasian Chileans in the article already. It does not need to stress European heritage more than it already does. Chiton magnificus (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.Time_Fall_1993.jpeg There was a Time magazine cover photo about immigration and race-mixing had a computer-generated image of a person combined of every race and made me realize the development of the Chilean people is somehow similar. In the image, the woman clearly looked Caucasian but of a bronze color alike Hispanic mestizos we hear about and has a hint of African black and Asiatic to alter her physiological appearance. 71.102.30.215 (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable Chilean people photo

I'm alarmed by how poorly representative the picture of notable Chileans in the infobox is. Why is Michelle Bachelet displayed, but not the current president, Sebastián Piñera? If Salvador Allende is displayed as a notable, surely Pinochet should also be? Also, why would actors and singers whose contribution to their nation and the world at large are--at best--ephemeral be displayed, but not some of the country's leading intellectuals and artists who are recognized around the world? Benjamin Vicuña and Nicole?--but not Claudio Arrau, Roberto Bolaño, Ramon Vinay, Pablo Neruda, Alejandro Jodorowsky, René Ríos Boettiger, etc.? How shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.62.119 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think having Allende in the picture is a valid argument for having Pinochet, the question would rather be if people associated with the left-wing are overrepresented or not. Well seeing the last 50 years of Chilean history it appears (trough elections) that most adult Chileans have voted on the left-of-centre camp. Puting famous people from the 1960s and 1970s will almost inevitable lead to claims that a political faction is overrepresented. In this case I think the communist party is overrepresented by having Marin, Neruda and Jara displayed.

The picture is not meant to show the people that deserve recognition but to show faces and (eventual) diversity. In that purpouse the picture have some merits:

• Reflects the fact that 50% of Chileans are women
• Reflects the varying degrees of European, Spanish and indigenous inheritage
• Shows people from different epochs
• Shows people with different occupations

Instead of complaining on the picture one should upload a new picture or a modified version and propose it for taking over the formers place. Dentren | ^Talk 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Likeminas (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On the usage of Amerindian and Mestizo in the article

This article has a history of vandalism and content dispute instability. 200.104.182.227 edits are not true vandalism, therefore I want to adress them here. The current dispute is this. 200.104.182.227 wants to replace the word amerindian with mestizo. He wants to state the Chilean people are a mix of mestizo and spanish elements. This is not what the source Z cited in the first sentence says, and excludes the Chileans that more indigenous than Spanish. The detailed nature of indigenous and European components of Chileans are explained in the section Ethnic structure of Chile. On the overall the Spanish, European and Mediterranean components of Chileans are well stressed, not so the indigenous. What would greatly improve the article now whould be a proper section of colonial and post-colonial mestization and to present indigenous peoples not as relicts but as evolving entities with a difuse/complex (or whatever it is) boundary to Chilean people. Dentren | ^Talk 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Chilenos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chilenos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Documentary about the global Chilean diaspora

In 2000, a documentary titled Patiperros is about Chileans living in many countries around the world: from Greenland or Iceland...to China and Japan...in the Middle East, south Africa and throughout Europe (esp. a large community in Sweden)... and to Australia and the USA. Here's the documentary's trailer I found on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYItlliT1-s 10:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In English: Patiperros or Chilean Globetrotters

Years: 1997/1998/2000 Digital colour video. Format: 36*52 minutes Transmitted primetime by the National Television of Chile (TVN) network. Synopsis: A series focused on the lives of Chileans living abroad. Why did they leave, what did they leave behind and what have they achieved, are just some of the questions dealt with by this programme focused on "Chilean migrants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.4.138 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not multiethnic

El Mercurio source [9] seems to state that Chile is multiethnic. Its important to remember that El Mercurio is a conservative newspaper and its no way authoritative on the ethnic structure of Chile. Common experience seems, at least for me, indicate that albeit there are diferent ancestries there Chileans self-identify as one group and the vast majority pay little attention to their ancestries in their ancestries in terms of identification. Furthermore inmigrant descendants seldom practise their traditional religion or language (eg. luteranism and german language for Germans or orthodox christianity and arabic for Palestinians). Dentren | ^Talk 01:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sobre los chileno en el exterior.

Falla el artículo al no describir la emigración de chilenos hacia la argentina. A pesar de ser la comunidad de chilenos mas grande fuera del pais no hay descripción de su desarrollo, causas y de su actualidad. Se les da mas imaportancia a otros destinos menos importantes en cuanto a cantidad de población. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termocupla (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Notable Chileans: Ena von Baer

Ena Von Baer it's not a world wide notable representative of Chile. I suggest to remove her from this section. 190.101.103.152 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done ★ Nacho ★ ★ 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet picture on inbox?

Should Augusto Pinochet be added to the inbox since he is a notable Chilean figure? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

NO to censorship

No one should appoint himself or herself to be "the owner" or "censor" of this page. Antivtv (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azerbaijani people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Chileans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511001812/http://www.deia.com:80/es/impresa/2008/05/22/bizkaia/ekonomia/469496.php to http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/05/22/bizkaia/ekonomia/469496.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516225654/http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/05/exiling-palestinians-to-chile/ to http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/05/exiling-palestinians-to-chile/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110917024605/http://www.matis.hr/vijesti.php?id=2265 to http://www.matis.hr/vijesti.php?id=2265
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080412230551/http://www.karnobooks.com:80/cgi-bin/karno/5814.html to http://www.karnobooks.com/cgi-bin/karno/5814.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225203250/http://www.umng.edu.co/www/resources/idsocial.doc to http://www.umng.edu.co/www/resources/idsocial.doc

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chileans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130818181825/http://www.medwave.cl/ciencia/11.act to http://www.medwave.cl/ciencia/11.act
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017061209/http://www.embajadaconsuladoschile.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=60&lang=de to http://www.embajadaconsuladoschile.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=60&lang=de
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722073846/http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514 to http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancestries

Why Wikipedians insist in editing chilean ancestries??? Chile has a long history of european and middle eastern diaspora, like german, croats and palestinians, chile no only had spaniards and mapuche people like some people want it , why im saying this??? because I'm Chilean myself, stop that nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.112.71 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Regarding the article, one of the lines clearly says "despite the fact that according to some investigations, pure whites in Chile account for less than 5% of the population.[14]" well that link say otherwise, and that writing is absolutely false, the article in the link says: "La población chilena tiene una estructura étnica conformada por un 30% de blancos o caucásicos; 5% de aborígenes mongoloides y 65% de mestizos predominantemente blancos. El aporte blanco proviene fundamentalmente de españoles (castellanos, andaluces y vascos, en su mayoría)" in english: 30% Whites 5% amerindians and 65% castizos /mestizos, I was blocked for correcting those editings, especially from users who are not from this country, especially the dominican user "Nika de Hitch" and "Ymblanter".....where are the moderators from wikipedia??? or is beacuse only of the friend/club editing team who can edit an article??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.28.177.115 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nika de Hitch= Vandalism

Can anyone check this user??, who constantly change information on the topic??? with persistent vandalism and fake information.....He isn't even chilean... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.70.186 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

RobbySainz (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing was requested. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chileans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429001707/http://www.cepchile.cl/enc_encuestas.html to http://www.cepchile.cl/enc_encuestas.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927103010/http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/olimpi98/fronterasculturales/datos/cap-pop.html to http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/olimpi98/fronterasculturales/datos/cap-pop.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chileans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016124831/http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl:80/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/cap2/5b6.html to http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/cap2/5b6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916211140/http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl:80/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/ to http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916211140/http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl:80/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/ to http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202064123/http://www.empresariosvascos.cl:80/boletines/2008-11-03-BOLETIN-EMPREBASK.pdf to http://www.empresariosvascos.cl/boletines/2008-11-03-BOLETIN-EMPREBASK.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303195315/http://www.hrvatski.cl/html/croatas.htm to http://www.hrvatski.cl/html/croatas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925011120/http://schweizergruppe.sv.tc:80/ to http://schweizergruppe.sv.tc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405100026/http://www.untoldlondon.org.uk:80/news/ART40460.html to http://www.untoldlondon.org.uk/news/ART40460.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chileans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115183154/http://www.aforteanosla.com.ar/afla/imagenes%20uh/hoja26/genetica%20chilena.htm to http://www.aforteanosla.com.ar/afla/imagenes%20uh/hoja26/genetica%20chilena.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chileans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016224632/http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/ to http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016224632/http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/ to http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

European Admixture (non spanish)

I added references about European (non spanish) admixture on Chile Here [10]

Las Regiones de Valparaíso, O'Higgins, Maule y la Región Metropolitana, ubicadas en la zona central aparecen con un aporte europeo más importante debido posiblemente a que los centros urbanos más importantes atrajeron un número mayor de inmigrantes26. De acuerdo a cifras oficiales, durante el período 1850-1950, aproximadamente 100.000 europeos ingresaron a Chile, si bien un grupo importante se radicó en el sur, la mayoría lo hizo en la zona central del país28. Valparaíso se convirtió en un puerto estratégico ubicado en las rutas navieras que cruzaban desde el Atlántico al Pacífico por el estrecho de Magallanes e inmigrantes alemanes, franceses, españoles, italianos y británicos, se avecindaron en la ciudad29. Cabe mencionar que a partir del año 1878 comenzaron a llegar a esa Región inmigrantes croatas, aumentando en número hasta la segunda década del siglo XX y quizá superando los 3.000 individuos, que habrían representado 10,5% de la población total de la Región en esa época30,31'." Cited in the Article.

Related ethic groups in Infobox

There seems to be a disagreement on whether we should include an exhaustive list of related ethnic groups in the infobox, or just list other latin americans. Is there any source which indicates these other groups are significant? Lets discuss and come up with a consensus.Work permit (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If we start introducing multiple ethnicities, it would have to be an exhaustive list... which is not useful to the reader (there's already a hatnote to the demographics article). Keeping it simple is the way to go for an infobox, the purpose of which is to be an 'at a glance' reference for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Work permit (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The shorter the infobox is the better, "other Latin Americans and indigenous peoples" should suffice. Otherwise, literally every other ethnic group that immigrated there should be mentioned as, ethnically, Chile is a complete mishmash. ProKro (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

[Moved from my talk page]:
I suggest only leave Latin Americans in the related ethnic groups, because indigenous people are part of the mix of ethnicities in Chile, like the europeans. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.160.41.119 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with the IP's point in principle, looking at parallel articles on other Latin American nation states, 'other Latin Americans' and indigenous ethnic groups within the specific countries seems to be standard practice where the 'related groups' parameter is used. I think my preference would be to include indigenous groups specific to the regions (for the edification of the reader), but I'm open to other opinions with the regards to whether the information is redundant to the infobox and best left to the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Focus only in amerindians

Why only amerindian appears in the related ethnic gropus??? I suggest then europeans. because Chileans are part not only amerindians, but also europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.160.87.163 (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@181.160.87.163: This was discussed in the section above, your comment was transplanted by Iryna Harpy. The simpler the infobox is the better, so adding all ethnic groups there are would make it incredibly cluttered. The only reason that the indigenous groups are included separately is to give a clear nod to the fact that the territory, which is now Chile, had been inhabited before the Spanish colonization, the very thing the article addresses. ProKro (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

ProKro Well then, get rid of amerindians, and leave only Latin AMericans, there is not reason to put "amerindians" plus Latin Americans, we are talking about ethnic gropus, not the historic peoples who inhabited Chile before the spanish....

@181.160.87.163: First of all, please be civil and do not revert edits without a consensus. Secondly, I believe you misread what I wrote. There is a specific reason why the Amerindians are mentioned - because they see themselves as separate; they are an identifiable group which maintains its identity within larger Latin America. They haven't disappeared but have rather been subsumed under it, as a part of a larger mixed group. Same isn't true of descendants of settlers. I agree that "Latin Americans" could encompass all groups in the region, as a sort of a "catch-all" term regardless of race or descent, but that'd an unnecessary pushing of an agenda and a wilful disregard of history of the native peoples. Moreover, "Europeans" would be redundant, their descendants are those same Latin Americans; a person who identifies as "Italian Chilean" is therefore variously interpreted as an Italian, a Latin American or Chilean or all of those simultaneously. We might as well then add "Africans", "Asians", "Polynesians", etc., or I guess... "everyone"? Do you catch my drift? With "Latin Americans and indigenous populations" everyone is encompassed. Native Amerindian peoples were historically described as a separate ethnolinguistic group made up of various peoples that identified more closely with each other then with outgroups that settled in the region. The infobox ought to address that, the article does at least. ProKro (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@181.160.87.163: Again, please stop edit warring, that leads us nowhere. Discuss the change here by giving your arguments first and telling us why you think your edit is valid as this has been discussed already in the sections above. If you don't, I'll have to ask for your suspension or the article protection. ProKro (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Update

I've update the numbers of Chileans in the world, from INE, which is the official government division on this topic.

• Added archive http://wwine-chile.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=cdc850a81d294e7f968a5d844d19773e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.160.253.143 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

???

Are Latin AMerican and Amerindians related to us only??? no, Europenas are too, and just that, not need to put all the groups... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.161.139.191 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ancestries

There is no evidence that indigenous people from Peru and Bolivia are part of ancestry of the Chileans, only in the far north this happens because of war of the pacific, and annexation of Arica and Antofagasta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.161.63.228 (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Other Latin Americans??.

Chile is pretty isolated,I think no other people in Southamerica or Latinamerica is similar to us...so this term is vague

@181.161.47.85: It is not vague. Chileans are pretty clearly part of the larger "Latin American" grouping and clearly culturally Hispanic. I couldn't even imagine what you'd base your view on other than unfounded Chilean exceptionalism. 141.136.198.189 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)