![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The paragraph goes: "However, it contrasts strongly with other countries given the strong influence of guarani culture and due to the fact that it has not received a comparable amount of European immigration"
This is simply not true. Apart from obvious Spanish, 40% of Paraguayans have Italian ancestry from the 20th century. (source from Italian embassy in Paraguay: https://www.abc.com.py/nacionales/nacionalidad-italo-paraguaya-es-un-hecho-segun-embajador-italiano-1758782.html) There's also a lot of German, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian immigrants.
Add to that the basically Rioplatense Spanish, yerba mate culture (it is Ilex paraguariensis after all), asados, and similar agro exporting economies. Paraguayans are much more culturally similar to Argentines and Uruguayans than Chileans are. Also see the Spanish article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cono_Sur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:2A00:6:2208:3C52:9442:4A88:60C8 ( talk) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I made a table with some dates comparing the Southern Cone with the Rest of South America and 'Central America + Caribbean + Mexico'... the problem is that a user changed the dates and put fake dates! you can see the real dates here http://en.wikipedia.org/Latin_America ... is just adding the numbers and dividing for the number of countries! but this person is changing the real dates all the time! how can I stop it? thank I'm new in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnahueeel ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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
Are both Aymara and Quechua spoken in this region? I think not. -- N0thingness 07:38, 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)
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.
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)
Brasil and Paraguay are not part of the southern cone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.208.120.251 ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
argum::Some citations in the media including Brazil in the southern cone:
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)
'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).
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)
"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)
o mapa continua errado sp não é parte do cone sul só almeja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:F839:26C4:5574:D508 ( talk) 17:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
"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)
This article sounds like a lot of unsourced propaganda of a nonexistent recognized region. Some of the remarks sound biased and tend to promote unverifiable information. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In what do you base by refering to this macroarea as nonexistent? -- Fercho85 ( talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it recognized by any government bodies or international organization? If so who? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that what you were looking for?
Thanks for the feedback likeminas and dentren... I am also curious to know why Paraguay is omitted from many of the stats. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is comparing the region to other Latin American countries, which is why I only included Mexico, I can add Canada and US? Also Puerto Rico is missing? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
North America as a region is incomplete. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So are all the other regions, why is N. America an exception? The US and Canada are not latin american countries, but if you want I can include them, for comparison reasons we have to include Mex. Puerto Rico, and brazil Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 18:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would even consider removing that section completely. This seems to be a regions comparison, so Brazil should be included in either the Souther Cone, or Rest of S. America part, Puerto Rico should also be added in Caribbean, in terms of Mexico, it should be in N. America, but not bulked, as others are not. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I never said Mexico is a region? Anyways, where would you like to include Mexico? What do you suggest, the only thing you have done is deleted Mexico from the tables? Include all Latin America countries or none Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I a fine with that, but in the southern cone region, we have to include Brazil and Paraguay, since both countries are considered SC throughout the article. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure this article is biased, as Jesusmariajalisco suggested, or if it rather WP:OR or WP:CBS. The problem I see is that the correct definition of the term is presented in the introductory paragraph, and is based exclusively on geographic terms [10], but then some users also attach to the definition cultural, ethnic and economic "traits" or "similarities", which are not part of the definition at least in English-speaking sources (hence the WP:CBS). The term, at least as it is used in English Academia, refers exclusively to a geographic area that comprises five [entire] countries regardless of their "shared common characteristics". In other words, the "shared common traits" did not cause the creation of the term, but rather the geographic location of the countries, which may also share other characteristics (like South East Asia) which even though they [might] exist, do not define the term. (As a corollary, if the term is merely geographical, other than by Academic usage, there is no reason to exclude one country or region of a country based on "cultural", "ethnic" or "economic" dissimilarities"). -- the Dúnadan 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction and even the map may lead many readers to believe the article is regarding all five countries, but for some reason some countries are being left out of the economic, demographic, and other data. I propose that some of the tables include in the Southern Cone; Brazil and Paraguay, this article can also use some clean up. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If I google southern cone, most of the websites come up with Paraguay included in with Arg., Chile, and Uruguay. Can you find one academically sound website that states its only Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Also can you find one that states only the southern portion of Brazil is included? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dúnadan did you find any other sources (besides the Encarta dictionary) that state the term was mainly created due to the geographic locations of the countries rather than other common traits? I find it kind of hard to say that, that's the way is used in English Academia without proving substantial (academic) references supporting that claim. It's not that it doesn't make sense, acutally it does, but I'd like to see more evidence of that.
Likeminas (
talk)
13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing,
Dúnadan is that I’m not claiming that my definition is correct. In fact, I haven’t given any definition. You have.
I just simply asked a question regarding the definition you’re giving.
I did imply, however, that if you’re going to say or claim that the term is derived and used in English academia 'only due to geographical reasons, then, at least some academic sources should be provided to back that up. So far, you have only presented the rather short definition given by the Encarta dictionary, which by the way says nothing about the etymology of the term.
Nonetheless, I do agree that limited reliable sources that happen to discuss or mention the term are available. In the case of Britannica, I didn’t find any articles entirely dedicated to the Southern Cone, but I did find a small mention under the article "Latin American Dance":
The Southern Cone includes all of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay and parts of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Brazil.
And under "Native American music" it says:
The Southern Cone area encompasses Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay as well as parts of Bolivia and Paraguay, incorporating several distinctive subregions. These include the Patagonian Andes, the traditional home of the Mapuche people; the north-central Chaco region inhabited by peoples such as the Toba, Maká, and Guaraní; and the Misiones region of northeastern Argentina (and part of Paraguay), home to the Mbyá.
Although it does mention the Southern Cone, it doesn't discuss the ethimology of the term.
I did question your definition, mainly, because it could be the case that the term was derived on other basis (in addition or other than the geographic location of the countries) because I notice term is also used in a economic sense. For example Encarta –Not the dictionary but the encyclopedia- does make a reference to the southern cone, under its article Mercosur.
Mercosur takes its name from Mercado Común del Sur (Spanish for “Common Market of the South”). It is also sometimes referred to as the Southern Cone Common Market.
So does The Columbia Encyclopedia, on its sixth edition (2005):
SOUTHERN CONE COMMON MARKET [Southern Cone Common Market] Latin American trade organization established in 1991 to increase economic cooperation among the countries of E South America; it is commonly known as Mercosur or Mercosul, from the Spanish and Portuguese names, respectively, for the organization. Full members include Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay; Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela are associate members. The headquarters are in Montevideo, Uruguay. Mercosur is gradually eliminating tariffs between member states and at the same time aiming for a low common external duty, and trade between its members has greatly expanded since 1991.
Another academic article focuses on the common economic trait (income inequality) shared by all the Southern cone countries. [11]
Yet The Oxford University Press on its online dictionary; http://www.oxfordlanguagedictionaries.com/Public/PublicResources.html?direction=b-es-en&sp=S/oldo/resources/es/Varieties-of-present-day-Spanish-es.html
says the following:
Latin American varieties of Spanish resist classification and contemporary national boundaries do not coincide with the boundaries between the different linguistic areas. We can, however, talk about certain characteristics common to the countries of the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) and within this group distinguish the dialect of the River Plate (Buenos Aires, Montevideo and the surrounding area) as having its own particular distinguishing features. In the same way, Andean Spanish exhibits certain common characteristics, while many Mexican uses extend into its neighbouring Central American countries
So, could it be possible that, there are shared traits, and the name is given not only due to the geographic location of the countries? I say it’s quite plausible, yet I won’t venture to give a definition, because it's not clear cut. I will say, however, that the etymology is not well defined and it can be a combination of various factors, such as geography, common history (military dictatorships), similar economic indicators (HDI, poverty rates, and income inequality levels, etc...) in addition to very similar linguistic traits. I will continue gathering more sources on the subject. And I'll post them here once I find a few.
PS: I’m not very geeky with Wikipedia’s tools, and I have no idea what that ClueBOT II (CBS) does or means, so could please explain in simple English its relationship to the article. Thanks.
Likeminas (
talk)
16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Dudan, that’s a Strawman. And since you’re quoting me out of context, allow me quote myself.
I previously asked:
Could it be possible that, there are shared traits, and the name is given not only due to the geographic location of the countries?
Yes, my question might be taken as suggestion that other factors were a consideration as to what constitutes the SC, but is hardly a definition. Nice try though.
Thanks for suggesting me to read
WP:OR, I should tell you that I have.
You said on your first intervention
"the term…..at least as it is used in English Academia, refers exclusively to a geographic area that comprises five [entire] countries regardless of their "shared common characteristics…"'
I checked the source you provided (Encarta Dictionary) and I found nowhere in that source anything about English academia and that’s why I pointed out that it was your opinion and not what the source said.
It’s interesting, however, to see that you came to this discussion emphasizing the need for (explicit?) sourced material, yet, here you are making unsourced, and perhaps dubious affirmations regarding the term’s usage in English academia.
Please, note that nowhere, I have disputed that geography is or might be a factor in the equation. I have only suggested it might not be the only reason, as you were making it look like on your first comment.
In regards to Western Europe (which can be a good and useful example for this article) the divide between communist and capitalist countries (and just like this article) is not the only consideration for the origin and usage of the term. The lead is clear about its complexity:
Western Europe refers to the countries generally in the westernmost half of Europe, but the definition is complex, and includes some geographically eastern countries such as Greece and Finland, because of their historical relationships to western European countries. The term has geographic, political, and cultural aspects. Since the end of World War II, the term has been used to describe the high-income developed countries of western Europe, characterized by democratic political systems, mixed economies combining the free market with aspects of the welfare state, alliance with the United States, and membership in NATO.
In any case, I think there’s information out there regarding the origin, past and current usage of the term.
I think the Encyclopedia of the Developing World has some good information on the history of South America, perhaps, something relevant might be found there.
In the meantime, I will definitely look into more sources, and see what they say about it.
Any help would be appreaciated.
Likeminas (
talk)
19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dudan, as I said above. I never discarded the possibility of geography playing a significant role.
I see, however, that you want to include all five countries based on that. And the problem with it, is that when reports refer to the Southern Cone, they don’t always include Brazil and/or Paraguay.
Take for example what the Encyclopedia of world environmental history says about the region. And this goes back to the point a was previously making regarding other connotations and usages of the term.
The Southern cone refers to the cone-shaped area of South America located south of the tropic of Capricorn. Although geographically this includes part of southeastern Brazil, in terms of political geography the Southern cone has traditionally compromised Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Starting in the 1990s, and especially since the creation of the southern common market in 1991, the term is often used to refer to a larger area also including Brazil and Bolivia.
Page 1142 under Souther Cone.
Regarding shared traits and what countries constitute the SC I found this in a Political science book.
The United States and the southern cone: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay
By Arthur Preston Whitaker
Published by Harvard University Press, 1976
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, called the southern cone of South America, have important features in common that set them apart from the rest of Latin America.
There's a tiny preview on Google books, but it's not a full preview.
I think this will be a useful book, but it won't be so easy to get, especially since I don't live in the U.S.
Nonetheless, I could order a copy over the internet, and then report what I find in it here. Or better yet, someone that lives in the U.S. such as
Jesusmariajalisco can go to their local library and borrow it.
In terms of maps, I found this one on:
Our Earth's Changing Land: An Encyclopedia of Land-use And Land-cover Change by Helmut Geist
So, a few Q&A to sum up what we have learned thus far........
Is the southern cone used in English Academia, to refer exclusively to a geographic area that comprises five countries?
Absolutely no.
Are there any shared traits amongst these countries?
Yes.
Do all sources so far, include without exception the countries of Brazil and/or Paraguay?
No.
Likeminas ( talk) 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I just read the Spanish Wikipedia version of the Southern Cone (Cono Sur) it does a better job in describing the region. It also leans toward including Paraguay, Brazil, and even Bolivia. Why should the English version be different? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Dúnadan:
Re-reading my replies, I realized I was misspelling your pseudonym, my apologies for that.
In any case, I agree with most of your points. And just to recap;
Having established these facts, I will go ahead and edit the lead. Of course, anyone can challenge it and change things around.
By the way, I just ordered a copy of the political science book; The United States and the southern cone: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay I will report back once I read it. Likeminas ( talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of the tables and data will also need revisions due to the inclusion of Paraguay and Brazil. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the Southern Cone be considered a region of the Western world? I mean, this article has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the region's "European-ness," from the picture of frost in Brazil to the paragraph upon paragraph of demographic statistics. And of course one must consider the region's impressive economic growth. On the other hand, if the Southern Cone inhabitants do consider themselves Western, then why do Americans and Western Europeans generally overlook this region when speaking of the West? What factors, beside relative geographical distance, set the Southern Cone region apart from the rest of the Western world?
For that matter, if one set of Latin American countries is to be considered Western, then what would preclude other Latin American countries from being considered part of the West? Is there a racial requirement, for instance, or do countries need to pass a certain economic threshold? Can a nation that is not predominantly Western in its genetic composition still adhere to Western values, or is it by default culturally non-Western? Also, can a nation that was not historically considered Western by outsiders eventually become widely "accepted" into the West? Should its people actually desire such an "honor"?
If anybody could elucidate on any academic or political arguments being waged on this topic, they might be of help in better understanding the place of the Southern Cone vis a vis the West and the rest of Latin America.-- Namenderkrieg ( talk) 07:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Chile white majority? Based on what? I noticed a user is posting everywhere that most Chileans are Whites (white European was is term used), and is erasing the other sources who claim Whites are a minority there. Chile has no Census, then it is impossible for someone to know how Chileans see their "race". Nobody can estimate the "racial" distribution of a population if you do not have basic informations, such as birth rates of each "racial" group, if there are high or low levels of "intermarriage" between different "racial" groups, life expectancy, immigration and emigration, etc, etc. Since Chile does not ask their citizens about race, they cannot know about these informations and cannot conclude anything. The only reliable source for Chile may be genetic resources, and all the resources conclude that the population there is a result of European and Amerindian mixture [14] and the History of the country shows that the European immigration there was minimal, and the Spanish settlers were mostly men who met female Amerindian women and had children with them. Chile is not Canada or the United States, where the Amerindian population was largely killed and the European settlers avoided intermarriage with them. It never happened in Latin America, and Chile is not an exception.
Then, why is somebody selling the idea in several articles about a White majority in Chile based on sources who may be based on nothing? Whiten ideologies make part of the imaginary of several Latin American countries, and Chile is not an exception. Only because there are some people selling the false idea that Whites are majority there, these biased sources cannot be followed. There are other sources claiming the opposite, and there's a clear conflict here.
More opinions, please. Opinoso ( talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
God, this article has became some kind of a competition about which country is the whitest.. isn't enough by stating "the region is mainly european descent"?? I strongly oppose to all the racial information it is completly out of context. -- Fercho85 ( talk) 05:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, I wonder if the rest of Brazil is not part of the Southern Cone as well (the map there showing the Southern Cone includes the state of São Paulo, which is not part of Southern Brazil, but of Southeastern Brazil (along with Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo). Opinoso ( talk) 13:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This article only focuses on the ethnic issue, ignoring other relevant sections, but while I explain some discrepancies, such as:
There is a sentence in the article that says: Amerindian-European admixture is dominant in countries such as Chile. A genetic resource concluded that Amerindian ancestry is found in both the high and low socioeconomic stratum of Chilean society, mainly on the maternal side, while European ancestry is dominant on the paternal side.
the south brazil is the northeast part of the south cone; southeast brazil no.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.201.194 ( talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Only are considered part of the sourthern cone: Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... not Brazil or Paraguay, i'm from Chile and i can give faith of that´s is true, on this site you can see an example: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=664188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgoviewer ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I put the NNPOV for the following reasons: the demography and ethnicity section put and overly extensive emphasis on the "whiteness" and "Europeaness" of the Southern Cone. More over in the language section tiny linguistic minorities like Croatian, "Other Slavic languages" (¿?) and German are given way to much space in relation to indigenous languages considering the number of speakers (and even more if considering the number of native speakers). futher more realiable sources on ethnicity issues like CIA Factbook are not considered. Futhermore one of the sources to back a Chilean figure of 80% whites is lead to an article called "Improgan-Induced Hypothermia: A Role for Cannabinoid Receptors..." which says nothing about Chilean populations. The arguably racist/racialist aproach on demography has been adressed before here on the talk page, but aparently this NNPOV resurged and has prevailed until now. Chiton magnificus ( talk) 19:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
How does "participation in the global markets" contribute to make the Southern Cone the most prosperous macro-region of South America?
This statement would make sence from a neoliberal point of view, but wikipedia is not here to endorse any particular world-view but current consensus. Chiton ( talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Southern Cone is the region of South America where frosts occurs every winter and where grains and wine are the mainstream of agriculture. In Sao Paulo, northern Parana, northern Chile and some regions in Paraguay and Argentina there is no frost and have fruits, coffee and sugar as the most important agricultural products, therefore they isn't part of the Southern Cone despite having demographic similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.55.69.215 ( talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Southern Cone is the region of South America where frosts occurs every winter and where grains and wine are the mainstream of agriculture. In Sao Paulo, northern Parana, northern Chile and some regions in Paraguay and Argentina there is no frost and have fruits, coffee and sugar as the most important agricultural products, therefore they isn't part of the Southern Cone despite having demographic similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.55.69.215 ( talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Southern Cone. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
há 2 cones sul o geopolitico 3 países e o geofísico abaixo do tropico a maior parte de sp fica acima do tropico e portanto não é parte do cone sul geofisico e nem geopolitico; o brasil só é englobado como cone sul parcialmente em geopolitica no context do mercosul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:F839:26C4:5574:D508 ( talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Southern Cone. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Southern Cone. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Southern Cone. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iidh.ed.cr/comunidades/diversidades/docs/div_docpublicaciones/DerechoWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Southern Cone. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The country grouping made for the chart is completely arbitrary. The "Southern Cone" countries don't have pretty much anything in common regarding most of these subjects.
Income inequality: Chile has one of the highest income inequalities measured by Gini index, unlike Argentina or Uruguay.
Lack of corruption: Argentina has one of the worst scores in the region in the Corruption Perceptions Index, unlike Chile and Uruguay.
Economic Freedom: same, Argentina is one of the countries in Latin America with the less economic freedom, according to the Index of Economic Freedom used there.
Democracy, Peace: Costa Rica and Panama score better than Argentina on these indexes.
GDP per capita: Panama has a much higher GDP per capita than Argentina. Which is on the same level as Mexico, Brazil or Costa Rica.
And there is no reason to group the other South American countries (or the Central American ones, for that matter) as if they were a united entity. Each of these countries has a very different political orientation from the others, different sociohistorical backgrounds, they are part of different supra-national entities and so on.
The "Southern Cone" is merely a geographical term and has no other meaning (economic, political, ethnical) beyond it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoacoCanal ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Southern Cone. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Missing from the article is an explanation of the quirky name. Why "cone" for a thing shaped like a triangle and not a cone? Can we get a (reliably sourced) etymology? TypoBoy ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The paragraph goes: "However, it contrasts strongly with other countries given the strong influence of guarani culture and due to the fact that it has not received a comparable amount of European immigration"
This is simply not true. Apart from obvious Spanish, 40% of Paraguayans have Italian ancestry from the 20th century. (source from Italian embassy in Paraguay: https://www.abc.com.py/nacionales/nacionalidad-italo-paraguaya-es-un-hecho-segun-embajador-italiano-1758782.html) There's also a lot of German, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian immigrants.
Add to that the basically Rioplatense Spanish, yerba mate culture (it is Ilex paraguariensis after all), asados, and similar agro exporting economies. Paraguayans are much more culturally similar to Argentines and Uruguayans than Chileans are. Also see the Spanish article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cono_Sur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:2A00:6:2208:3C52:9442:4A88:60C8 ( talk) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I made a table with some dates comparing the Southern Cone with the Rest of South America and 'Central America + Caribbean + Mexico'... the problem is that a user changed the dates and put fake dates! you can see the real dates here http://en.wikipedia.org/Latin_America ... is just adding the numbers and dividing for the number of countries! but this person is changing the real dates all the time! how can I stop it? thank I'm new in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnahueeel ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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
Are both Aymara and Quechua spoken in this region? I think not. -- N0thingness 07:38, 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)
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.
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)
Brasil and Paraguay are not part of the southern cone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.208.120.251 ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
argum::Some citations in the media including Brazil in the southern cone:
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)
'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).
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)
"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)
o mapa continua errado sp não é parte do cone sul só almeja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:F839:26C4:5574:D508 ( talk) 17:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
"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)
This article sounds like a lot of unsourced propaganda of a nonexistent recognized region. Some of the remarks sound biased and tend to promote unverifiable information. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In what do you base by refering to this macroarea as nonexistent? -- Fercho85 ( talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it recognized by any government bodies or international organization? If so who? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that what you were looking for?
Thanks for the feedback likeminas and dentren... I am also curious to know why Paraguay is omitted from many of the stats. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is comparing the region to other Latin American countries, which is why I only included Mexico, I can add Canada and US? Also Puerto Rico is missing? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
North America as a region is incomplete. Selecciones de la Vida ( talk) 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So are all the other regions, why is N. America an exception? The US and Canada are not latin american countries, but if you want I can include them, for comparison reasons we have to include Mex. Puerto Rico, and brazil Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 18:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would even consider removing that section completely. This seems to be a regions comparison, so Brazil should be included in either the Souther Cone, or Rest of S. America part, Puerto Rico should also be added in Caribbean, in terms of Mexico, it should be in N. America, but not bulked, as others are not. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I never said Mexico is a region? Anyways, where would you like to include Mexico? What do you suggest, the only thing you have done is deleted Mexico from the tables? Include all Latin America countries or none Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I a fine with that, but in the southern cone region, we have to include Brazil and Paraguay, since both countries are considered SC throughout the article. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure this article is biased, as Jesusmariajalisco suggested, or if it rather WP:OR or WP:CBS. The problem I see is that the correct definition of the term is presented in the introductory paragraph, and is based exclusively on geographic terms [10], but then some users also attach to the definition cultural, ethnic and economic "traits" or "similarities", which are not part of the definition at least in English-speaking sources (hence the WP:CBS). The term, at least as it is used in English Academia, refers exclusively to a geographic area that comprises five [entire] countries regardless of their "shared common characteristics". In other words, the "shared common traits" did not cause the creation of the term, but rather the geographic location of the countries, which may also share other characteristics (like South East Asia) which even though they [might] exist, do not define the term. (As a corollary, if the term is merely geographical, other than by Academic usage, there is no reason to exclude one country or region of a country based on "cultural", "ethnic" or "economic" dissimilarities"). -- the Dúnadan 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction and even the map may lead many readers to believe the article is regarding all five countries, but for some reason some countries are being left out of the economic, demographic, and other data. I propose that some of the tables include in the Southern Cone; Brazil and Paraguay, this article can also use some clean up. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If I google southern cone, most of the websites come up with Paraguay included in with Arg., Chile, and Uruguay. Can you find one academically sound website that states its only Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Also can you find one that states only the southern portion of Brazil is included? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dúnadan did you find any other sources (besides the Encarta dictionary) that state the term was mainly created due to the geographic locations of the countries rather than other common traits? I find it kind of hard to say that, that's the way is used in English Academia without proving substantial (academic) references supporting that claim. It's not that it doesn't make sense, acutally it does, but I'd like to see more evidence of that.
Likeminas (
talk)
13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The thing,
Dúnadan is that I’m not claiming that my definition is correct. In fact, I haven’t given any definition. You have.
I just simply asked a question regarding the definition you’re giving.
I did imply, however, that if you’re going to say or claim that the term is derived and used in English academia 'only due to geographical reasons, then, at least some academic sources should be provided to back that up. So far, you have only presented the rather short definition given by the Encarta dictionary, which by the way says nothing about the etymology of the term.
Nonetheless, I do agree that limited reliable sources that happen to discuss or mention the term are available. In the case of Britannica, I didn’t find any articles entirely dedicated to the Southern Cone, but I did find a small mention under the article "Latin American Dance":
The Southern Cone includes all of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay and parts of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Brazil.
And under "Native American music" it says:
The Southern Cone area encompasses Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay as well as parts of Bolivia and Paraguay, incorporating several distinctive subregions. These include the Patagonian Andes, the traditional home of the Mapuche people; the north-central Chaco region inhabited by peoples such as the Toba, Maká, and Guaraní; and the Misiones region of northeastern Argentina (and part of Paraguay), home to the Mbyá.
Although it does mention the Southern Cone, it doesn't discuss the ethimology of the term.
I did question your definition, mainly, because it could be the case that the term was derived on other basis (in addition or other than the geographic location of the countries) because I notice term is also used in a economic sense. For example Encarta –Not the dictionary but the encyclopedia- does make a reference to the southern cone, under its article Mercosur.
Mercosur takes its name from Mercado Común del Sur (Spanish for “Common Market of the South”). It is also sometimes referred to as the Southern Cone Common Market.
So does The Columbia Encyclopedia, on its sixth edition (2005):
SOUTHERN CONE COMMON MARKET [Southern Cone Common Market] Latin American trade organization established in 1991 to increase economic cooperation among the countries of E South America; it is commonly known as Mercosur or Mercosul, from the Spanish and Portuguese names, respectively, for the organization. Full members include Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay; Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela are associate members. The headquarters are in Montevideo, Uruguay. Mercosur is gradually eliminating tariffs between member states and at the same time aiming for a low common external duty, and trade between its members has greatly expanded since 1991.
Another academic article focuses on the common economic trait (income inequality) shared by all the Southern cone countries. [11]
Yet The Oxford University Press on its online dictionary; http://www.oxfordlanguagedictionaries.com/Public/PublicResources.html?direction=b-es-en&sp=S/oldo/resources/es/Varieties-of-present-day-Spanish-es.html
says the following:
Latin American varieties of Spanish resist classification and contemporary national boundaries do not coincide with the boundaries between the different linguistic areas. We can, however, talk about certain characteristics common to the countries of the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) and within this group distinguish the dialect of the River Plate (Buenos Aires, Montevideo and the surrounding area) as having its own particular distinguishing features. In the same way, Andean Spanish exhibits certain common characteristics, while many Mexican uses extend into its neighbouring Central American countries
So, could it be possible that, there are shared traits, and the name is given not only due to the geographic location of the countries? I say it’s quite plausible, yet I won’t venture to give a definition, because it's not clear cut. I will say, however, that the etymology is not well defined and it can be a combination of various factors, such as geography, common history (military dictatorships), similar economic indicators (HDI, poverty rates, and income inequality levels, etc...) in addition to very similar linguistic traits. I will continue gathering more sources on the subject. And I'll post them here once I find a few.
PS: I’m not very geeky with Wikipedia’s tools, and I have no idea what that ClueBOT II (CBS) does or means, so could please explain in simple English its relationship to the article. Thanks.
Likeminas (
talk)
16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Dudan, that’s a Strawman. And since you’re quoting me out of context, allow me quote myself.
I previously asked:
Could it be possible that, there are shared traits, and the name is given not only due to the geographic location of the countries?
Yes, my question might be taken as suggestion that other factors were a consideration as to what constitutes the SC, but is hardly a definition. Nice try though.
Thanks for suggesting me to read
WP:OR, I should tell you that I have.
You said on your first intervention
"the term…..at least as it is used in English Academia, refers exclusively to a geographic area that comprises five [entire] countries regardless of their "shared common characteristics…"'
I checked the source you provided (Encarta Dictionary) and I found nowhere in that source anything about English academia and that’s why I pointed out that it was your opinion and not what the source said.
It’s interesting, however, to see that you came to this discussion emphasizing the need for (explicit?) sourced material, yet, here you are making unsourced, and perhaps dubious affirmations regarding the term’s usage in English academia.
Please, note that nowhere, I have disputed that geography is or might be a factor in the equation. I have only suggested it might not be the only reason, as you were making it look like on your first comment.
In regards to Western Europe (which can be a good and useful example for this article) the divide between communist and capitalist countries (and just like this article) is not the only consideration for the origin and usage of the term. The lead is clear about its complexity:
Western Europe refers to the countries generally in the westernmost half of Europe, but the definition is complex, and includes some geographically eastern countries such as Greece and Finland, because of their historical relationships to western European countries. The term has geographic, political, and cultural aspects. Since the end of World War II, the term has been used to describe the high-income developed countries of western Europe, characterized by democratic political systems, mixed economies combining the free market with aspects of the welfare state, alliance with the United States, and membership in NATO.
In any case, I think there’s information out there regarding the origin, past and current usage of the term.
I think the Encyclopedia of the Developing World has some good information on the history of South America, perhaps, something relevant might be found there.
In the meantime, I will definitely look into more sources, and see what they say about it.
Any help would be appreaciated.
Likeminas (
talk)
19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dudan, as I said above. I never discarded the possibility of geography playing a significant role.
I see, however, that you want to include all five countries based on that. And the problem with it, is that when reports refer to the Southern Cone, they don’t always include Brazil and/or Paraguay.
Take for example what the Encyclopedia of world environmental history says about the region. And this goes back to the point a was previously making regarding other connotations and usages of the term.
The Southern cone refers to the cone-shaped area of South America located south of the tropic of Capricorn. Although geographically this includes part of southeastern Brazil, in terms of political geography the Southern cone has traditionally compromised Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Starting in the 1990s, and especially since the creation of the southern common market in 1991, the term is often used to refer to a larger area also including Brazil and Bolivia.
Page 1142 under Souther Cone.
Regarding shared traits and what countries constitute the SC I found this in a Political science book.
The United States and the southern cone: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay
By Arthur Preston Whitaker
Published by Harvard University Press, 1976
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, called the southern cone of South America, have important features in common that set them apart from the rest of Latin America.
There's a tiny preview on Google books, but it's not a full preview.
I think this will be a useful book, but it won't be so easy to get, especially since I don't live in the U.S.
Nonetheless, I could order a copy over the internet, and then report what I find in it here. Or better yet, someone that lives in the U.S. such as
Jesusmariajalisco can go to their local library and borrow it.
In terms of maps, I found this one on:
Our Earth's Changing Land: An Encyclopedia of Land-use And Land-cover Change by Helmut Geist
So, a few Q&A to sum up what we have learned thus far........
Is the southern cone used in English Academia, to refer exclusively to a geographic area that comprises five countries?
Absolutely no.
Are there any shared traits amongst these countries?
Yes.
Do all sources so far, include without exception the countries of Brazil and/or Paraguay?
No.
Likeminas ( talk) 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I just read the Spanish Wikipedia version of the Southern Cone (Cono Sur) it does a better job in describing the region. It also leans toward including Paraguay, Brazil, and even Bolivia. Why should the English version be different? Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Dúnadan:
Re-reading my replies, I realized I was misspelling your pseudonym, my apologies for that.
In any case, I agree with most of your points. And just to recap;
Having established these facts, I will go ahead and edit the lead. Of course, anyone can challenge it and change things around.
By the way, I just ordered a copy of the political science book; The United States and the southern cone: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay I will report back once I read it. Likeminas ( talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of the tables and data will also need revisions due to the inclusion of Paraguay and Brazil. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the Southern Cone be considered a region of the Western world? I mean, this article has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the region's "European-ness," from the picture of frost in Brazil to the paragraph upon paragraph of demographic statistics. And of course one must consider the region's impressive economic growth. On the other hand, if the Southern Cone inhabitants do consider themselves Western, then why do Americans and Western Europeans generally overlook this region when speaking of the West? What factors, beside relative geographical distance, set the Southern Cone region apart from the rest of the Western world?
For that matter, if one set of Latin American countries is to be considered Western, then what would preclude other Latin American countries from being considered part of the West? Is there a racial requirement, for instance, or do countries need to pass a certain economic threshold? Can a nation that is not predominantly Western in its genetic composition still adhere to Western values, or is it by default culturally non-Western? Also, can a nation that was not historically considered Western by outsiders eventually become widely "accepted" into the West? Should its people actually desire such an "honor"?
If anybody could elucidate on any academic or political arguments being waged on this topic, they might be of help in better understanding the place of the Southern Cone vis a vis the West and the rest of Latin America.-- Namenderkrieg ( talk) 07:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Chile white majority? Based on what? I noticed a user is posting everywhere that most Chileans are Whites (white European was is term used), and is erasing the other sources who claim Whites are a minority there. Chile has no Census, then it is impossible for someone to know how Chileans see their "race". Nobody can estimate the "racial" distribution of a population if you do not have basic informations, such as birth rates of each "racial" group, if there are high or low levels of "intermarriage" between different "racial" groups, life expectancy, immigration and emigration, etc, etc. Since Chile does not ask their citizens about race, they cannot know about these informations and cannot conclude anything. The only reliable source for Chile may be genetic resources, and all the resources conclude that the population there is a result of European and Amerindian mixture [14] and the History of the country shows that the European immigration there was minimal, and the Spanish settlers were mostly men who met female Amerindian women and had children with them. Chile is not Canada or the United States, where the Amerindian population was largely killed and the European settlers avoided intermarriage with them. It never happened in Latin America, and Chile is not an exception.
Then, why is somebody selling the idea in several articles about a White majority in Chile based on sources who may be based on nothing? Whiten ideologies make part of the imaginary of several Latin American countries, and Chile is not an exception. Only because there are some people selling the false idea that Whites are majority there, these biased sources cannot be followed. There are other sources claiming the opposite, and there's a clear conflict here.
More opinions, please. Opinoso ( talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
God, this article has became some kind of a competition about which country is the whitest.. isn't enough by stating "the region is mainly european descent"?? I strongly oppose to all the racial information it is completly out of context. -- Fercho85 ( talk) 05:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, I wonder if the rest of Brazil is not part of the Southern Cone as well (the map there showing the Southern Cone includes the state of São Paulo, which is not part of Southern Brazil, but of Southeastern Brazil (along with Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo). Opinoso ( talk) 13:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This article only focuses on the ethnic issue, ignoring other relevant sections, but while I explain some discrepancies, such as:
There is a sentence in the article that says: Amerindian-European admixture is dominant in countries such as Chile. A genetic resource concluded that Amerindian ancestry is found in both the high and low socioeconomic stratum of Chilean society, mainly on the maternal side, while European ancestry is dominant on the paternal side.
the south brazil is the northeast part of the south cone; southeast brazil no.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.201.194 ( talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Only are considered part of the sourthern cone: Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... not Brazil or Paraguay, i'm from Chile and i can give faith of that´s is true, on this site you can see an example: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=664188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgoviewer ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I put the NNPOV for the following reasons: the demography and ethnicity section put and overly extensive emphasis on the "whiteness" and "Europeaness" of the Southern Cone. More over in the language section tiny linguistic minorities like Croatian, "Other Slavic languages" (¿?) and German are given way to much space in relation to indigenous languages considering the number of speakers (and even more if considering the number of native speakers). futher more realiable sources on ethnicity issues like CIA Factbook are not considered. Futhermore one of the sources to back a Chilean figure of 80% whites is lead to an article called "Improgan-Induced Hypothermia: A Role for Cannabinoid Receptors..." which says nothing about Chilean populations. The arguably racist/racialist aproach on demography has been adressed before here on the talk page, but aparently this NNPOV resurged and has prevailed until now. Chiton magnificus ( talk) 19:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
How does "participation in the global markets" contribute to make the Southern Cone the most prosperous macro-region of South America?
This statement would make sence from a neoliberal point of view, but wikipedia is not here to endorse any particular world-view but current consensus. Chiton ( talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Southern Cone is the region of South America where frosts occurs every winter and where grains and wine are the mainstream of agriculture. In Sao Paulo, northern Parana, northern Chile and some regions in Paraguay and Argentina there is no frost and have fruits, coffee and sugar as the most important agricultural products, therefore they isn't part of the Southern Cone despite having demographic similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.55.69.215 ( talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Southern Cone is the region of South America where frosts occurs every winter and where grains and wine are the mainstream of agriculture. In Sao Paulo, northern Parana, northern Chile and some regions in Paraguay and Argentina there is no frost and have fruits, coffee and sugar as the most important agricultural products, therefore they isn't part of the Southern Cone despite having demographic similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.55.69.215 ( talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Southern Cone. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
há 2 cones sul o geopolitico 3 países e o geofísico abaixo do tropico a maior parte de sp fica acima do tropico e portanto não é parte do cone sul geofisico e nem geopolitico; o brasil só é englobado como cone sul parcialmente em geopolitica no context do mercosul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:F839:26C4:5574:D508 ( talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Southern Cone. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Southern Cone. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Southern Cone. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iidh.ed.cr/comunidades/diversidades/docs/div_docpublicaciones/DerechoWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Southern Cone. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The country grouping made for the chart is completely arbitrary. The "Southern Cone" countries don't have pretty much anything in common regarding most of these subjects.
Income inequality: Chile has one of the highest income inequalities measured by Gini index, unlike Argentina or Uruguay.
Lack of corruption: Argentina has one of the worst scores in the region in the Corruption Perceptions Index, unlike Chile and Uruguay.
Economic Freedom: same, Argentina is one of the countries in Latin America with the less economic freedom, according to the Index of Economic Freedom used there.
Democracy, Peace: Costa Rica and Panama score better than Argentina on these indexes.
GDP per capita: Panama has a much higher GDP per capita than Argentina. Which is on the same level as Mexico, Brazil or Costa Rica.
And there is no reason to group the other South American countries (or the Central American ones, for that matter) as if they were a united entity. Each of these countries has a very different political orientation from the others, different sociohistorical backgrounds, they are part of different supra-national entities and so on.
The "Southern Cone" is merely a geographical term and has no other meaning (economic, political, ethnical) beyond it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoacoCanal ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Southern Cone. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Missing from the article is an explanation of the quirky name. Why "cone" for a thing shaped like a triangle and not a cone? Can we get a (reliably sourced) etymology? TypoBoy ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)