Talk:Southern Cone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Genetic Study

The user Dúnadan has removed my entire paragraph of text and replaced it with his, with no reason whatsoever. If you follow his edits, you can clearly see that he has an agenda, as he has been reverting and removing sections from articles concerning Argentine demographics all across the wiki.

I consider my original text was apropiate for the article, yet the one posted by the Dúnadan is a clear copy-paste of what he typed into Demographics of Argentina. In both articles, Dúnadan has reintroduced the controversial UBA study that says 56% of Argentines have amerindian descent. This study has been proven wrong by many others, such as [1], as well as arguments explaining that the supposed "amerindian" markers analized are also present in Spanish and Galician populations, of which Argentina has plenty of descendants.

As a result, the UBA study was considered too controversial, and a consensus was reached to keep it out of the Demographics of Argentina article. Yet this user has been adding it again, and even worse, HAS REWRITTEN MY COUNTRIBUTION WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER, as he basically posted the same information with a different rewording.

I've made more than 500 contributions to the Wiki, with a dynamic IP, but it's pretty sad to see that so many editors are willing to side against an anonymous editor simply because he's anonymous. I guess I'll have to create a nickname for myself, even though that undermines the purpose of the Wiki itself.

Please take a look on this info I gave you. The genetic study has no bearing whatsoever in the article, unless you also want to include genetic studies on Canada, the USA, Brazil, or Australia, which also show similar levels of admixture. Regards,

--200.117.168.68 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim. I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:

The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina.[2], [3]. This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussion amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:

""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote). [4]

A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Wikipedia with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Wikipedia is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition es:Composición étnica de Argentina.

I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.

I will copy this paragraph to Talk:White American and Talk:Demographics of Argentina and will welcome your opinion on the matter. I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.

--the Dúnadan 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am aware of the Dispute Resolution venue, even though, in my past experience, it has been of very little help. Honestly, I don't think this issue merits Dispute Resolution. When an edit is comprehensive and fully reliable, and the other is POV and not referenced, I think that the latter clearly violates Wikipedia's three core principles.

--the Dúnadan 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've adopted a username and will try to follow your advice. Regards,

--Dharma for one (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim i have been looking forward the article white people and this particular user the Dúnadan who has been editing all the articles with the UBA study made surprisingly in all white and demographics articles about Argentina I personally think we should report it as vandalism because he cannot just appear and erase all our contributions just because he wants to put a racist study against Argentina and all ending up in a great discution because that's what he has created..well I wait your opinion

Fercho85 02:32 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply.

Let's recap. The genetic study comes from the Genetic Department of the University of Buenos Aires, it was confirmed by several other studies, and its findings were accepted and supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina. In fact, the government says that "these findings help fight discrimination". These findings show that the Amerindian contribution is much larger than previously showed.

Fercho claims that writing a paragraph that complies with WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability is "racist". He also claims that this study, which, in words of the government of Argentina, will help fight discrimination, is "racist". Moreover, he claims that I am racist (in a very inappropriate insult here). Now he claims that I erase his contributions (not quite true see his contributions) and that I am vandalizing Wikipedia. Isn't everything the other way around?

--the Dúnadan 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dunadan I understand what you say but you should have proposed to add this study previously. I have reverted you editions until we get to a final decision with the other users

Fercho85 05:12, 09 Feb 2008

Per WP:BOLD, not to mention WP:CITE and WP:NPOV my edits are fully substantiated. Read WP:Consensus; you might propose changes if you like, but not revert perfectly sourced edits compliant with Wikpedia's policies. --the Dúnadan 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Are both Aymara and Quechua spoken in this region? I think not. -- N0thingness 07:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

They are spoken in Argentina and Chile. Mariano(t/c) 08:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

isn't this article wikified already?

nope they are not spoken in Argentina

and Paraguay is not a part of the Souther cone nor in geograohical nor cultural terms i'll delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.183 (talk • contribs)

In northern Argentina and Chile Aymara and Quechua are spoken. Also, Paraguay is part of the Cono Sur. See Spanish article. Mariano(t/c) 10:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Truly, I don't want to get involved in this dilemma and i read your viewpoints rather quickly, though and i did travel throughout the southern cone, and i do have family in the centre, and i believe most are of Euro decent, but, that at least 50% of people have at least 10 % Amerindian and to a lesser degree African blood, i do believe its possible, nevertheless, it doesn't change anything, it's been four or more generations of this accomplishment and we are still Argentines, and that at least 10-20% of the whole population are Amerindian is also possible, they just hide or are are not visible, or that we hide them may be another explanation, it's very similar in the US of A, nonetheless, similar migrations have occurred in Europe over centuries and nobody talks about it, and to emphasize the "white race" is racist and totally wrong. ~ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil (or part of it) is not integrant of Southern Cone

Officially Brazil don't recognize itself as part of "Southern Cone". Brazil cannot to be separated to be part of that racist geographical "concept", it is continuous, undividable. Racist because it try to invent an false "white" and "european" separation in South America -- well that is impossible to apply to Brazil.

The southern brazilian region is almost so mixed like the entire Brazil. There are many german and italian descendants but the are many african and native descendants too.

The mixed Brazilian people is very different from the uruguaians, paraguayans and argentines. Maybe only in Uruguay there are few african descendants.

That "concept" Southern Cone smells prejudice (neonazism or fascism).

Whatever. Brazil is not part of it.

I don't know what you mean with Racism. You can't denied that the south of Brazil was populated with more European immigrants that the north. A clear example of that is the Oktober fest, wich is celebrated in the South of Brazil. I truly don't consider the concept of Southern Cone racist, and in any case, that has little to do with the fact of Southern Brazil being part of it. Mariano(t/c) 10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The southern part of Brazil IS REALLY part of the Southern Cone. The geographic position, the temperate natural conditions and the cultural features are determinant for including the southern part of Brazil in the southern cone. The inhabitants of these area recognize themselves as part of the Southern Cone. There is no "neonazism" concept. Fsolda 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained below why I do not see it as appropriate to include any part of Brazil. Certainly there is no "neonazism" concept: in that I agree with you. Fsolda has stated that there is no definition of the Southern Cone; I have provided a reasonable one which does not include any part of Brazil. Further, Fsolda removed the tag questioning why Bolivia isn't included without providing any reference. Ringbark 23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Argentine,Uruguay, Chile (always),Paraguay and Southern Brazil(RGS,Sª Cat.,Paraná[and sometimes Río and Sº Paulo](sometimes) form the Sth. Cone--AleG2 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about Brazil not being part of the Southern Cone

Although I may question the reasoning behind the previous comments, I support the view that Brazil is not a part of the Southern Cone. The Anglican Church, while admittedly a small voice in South America, does not view Brazil as part of the Southern Cone. Generally, the Anglican Church follows local views on such things. The province of the Southern Cone as described in Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de las Americas includes Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Brazil is a separate province - see Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil for this.

I cannot comment as to the reasons that the various sovereign governments have, but the fact that Spanish is an official language of every country of the Southern Cone while Portuguese is an official language in Brazil. This in itself also forms a natural division between the countries. Therefore, I am reverting the article to one which does not claim any part of Brazil as a part of the Southern Cone. Ringbark 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the Southern Cone is a geographical concept (and not political), the four most southern states of Brazil may be included in this region without prejudice. The natural features, such as the subtropical temperate climate (and not properly tropical) and also the standard of living of this region, similar to Uruguay, Argentina and Chile, are reasons for including this region in the southern cone. Bolivia and Peru has no natural, cultural or social features for being included in the region. Fsolda (talk • contribs) 03:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

argum::Some citations in the media including Brazil in the southern cone:

• http://www.lastfrontiers.com/itindetail.php?id=43
• http://pesd.stanford.edu/publications/gas_trade_in_the_southern_cone/
• http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/Menezes.pdf
• http://www.consargenmtl.com/trade6.htm
• http://www.usccb.org/latinamerica/2005/AR0539-45.pdf
• http://www.ilea.ufrgs.br/conesul/avaliacao.html (portuguese)
• http://www.iica.org.br/boletim/Principal.asp (portuguese)
• http://www.servidimaria.org/po/attualita/presenza/conf_reg.htm (portuguese)

So, it's true the fact of the inclusion of Brazil sometimes in the Southern Cone. If only an entire country may be included in a region, then northern Brazil cannot be included in Amazonia. Fsolda 12:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, below I list some references which exclude Brazil from the Southern Cone. Many organisations seem to produce newsletters which are about "Brazil and the Southern Cone" - this tells me that while they recognise the Southern Cone, they also recognise that Brazil is not a part of it. On the other hand, I'm not looking to have a "my link list is better than your link list" sort of dispute.

• http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/americas/brazil_and_southern_cone.html
• http://www.latinamericamonitor.com/file/7333/southerncone.html
• http://www.amyglenn.com/Geography/southcone.htm
• http://w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?263316
• http://www.unicef.org/polls/tacro/development/index.html
• http://www.latinnews.com/
• http://www.edc.ca/english/docs/news/2004/mediaroom_1914.htm

I'm also disappointed that Fsolda sees fit to remove the link to the Anglican province, possibly because it didn't support his opinion about the Southern Cone. Ringbark 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think the Anglican Church is not a major organ for defining what belongs to a geographic part and what not, since it is a very minoritary religion in the Southern Cone and also every world. The Roman Catholicism is highly dominant in all these countries. However, it's a fact which the southern Brazil is sometimes included in the southern cone and sometimes not included - both versions must be included in the article. The southern Brazil has the same characteristics of Chile, Uruguay and Argentina: medium-high standard of life, below the Tropic of Capricorn, high european influence and temperate climate - the states of Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul also have snow during the winter. If the southern Brazil cannot be included in the Southern Cone, then the northern Brazil cannot be included as part of Amazonia. Fsolda 23:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Anglican Church is not a major body in South America; nevertheless the fact that they name their province after the Southern Cone does make it significant. Also significant is the fact that the province was founded by a different body to the Brazilian province. I further stand by my original assertion that the Southern Cone can also be defined linguistically. I don't see any merit in your claim that excluding Southern Brazil means that Northern Brazil can't be in Amazonia. Probably we need input from others on this point: at the moment I can't see that you will ever be happy to exclude Brazil while I won't be happy to include it. Ringbark 00:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ringbark, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So, we need to place facts, independently if we would be happy or not. The fact is: Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are always included in the Southern Cone, and the southern Brazil is sometimes included (and sometimes not). The question about the Anglican Church in the southern cone: it didn't include Brazil because Brazil is not "fully" in the southern cone. But if the southern states of Brazil and even the São Paulo State would be a separate country, certainly this country would be always part of the southern cone. The Anglican Church also refers improperly to Peru as part of the southern cone, while Peru doesn't share any feature with the other countries in southern cone: it's a poor country, fully placed above the tropic of Capricorn (look to the map!), and it has very low european influence in comparison with Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Fsolda 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the Anglican link again. If the province is called the Province of the Southern Cone, then it is an appropriate link. If you wish to furnish an equivalent Catholic link, I won't delete that. Ringbark 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capita of São Paulo state places second after Argentina (as per United Nations Human Development Program Report 2006) Source: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR_2006_Tables.pdf

see also http://www.economist.com/images/20070414/CSU926.gif

Data for Year 2004 (most recent): Argentina GDP per capita US$13,298 São Paulo state US$12,500 Chile US$10,874 Uruguay US$9,421

Vivaldi4Stagioni 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

~The first link included does not reference São Paulo state, and the following links do not accurately project the GDP per capita of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.Selecciones de la Vida 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

-Both links come from the same source (UNDP expressed in PPP) and year (2004). They are trustworthy and accurate and should be shown on the article page. Please reconsider. Vivaldi4Stagioni 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

~Current GDP per capita figures are required to show accuracy. In 2004 the projections may have been valid, In 2007 those same figures are considered outdated. Searching and using updated references is highly recommended. Selecciones de la Vida 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castellano

'Castellano' and Spanish are actually the same thing. Castellano is NOT a variety of Spanish but Spanish itself. It is true, though, that in the Southern Cone this language is locally called 'castellano' instead of 'español.' But the language remains the same nonetheless (although regional versions do indeed exist).

[edit] Omission on the map

The introduction defines "Southern Cone" as the region of South America south of the Tropic of Capricorn.

There are two maps.

Neither of them shows the Tropic of Capricorn.

???? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light green?

Dark green: region included in the Southern Cone in all times. Medium green: region sometimes included in the Southern Cone. Light green: region only in rare acceptions included in the Southern Cone

"Light green: region only in rare acceptions included in the Southern Cone." This definition of the Southern Cone is not mentioned within the article, and I suppose it can be ignored. Why do not use the map South_cone_map.png (on the right side here →) instead - it is absolutely neutral and open towards the different views. This map is used as well in other Wikipedias, and some of them have been semiprotected for the brasilian IPs vandalizing them with the "green maps" without considering the context of the articles. --Hans Urian (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israelis?

"Chile's various waves of immigrants (Italians, Germans, Israelis, Yugoslavians, Arabs, etc.)" -- From a cursory search, I haven't been able to find any evidence of immigration from Israel to Chile strong enough to be considered a 'wave', and if there has been I would find that surprising indeed. Is this made up or is there some truth behind it? If it is true, there should be more about it (perhaps in the main Chile article) because you don't often hear about migration _from_ Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.188.60 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)