Talk:Southern Cone

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paraguay Inclusion

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)[reply]

Table

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree with the stand of of Dunadan, there is a clearly academic view on the genetic originis of Argentines and there is no study (9as far as I know) that challanges it the scientic comunity. I do agree with the accusations against Dunadan, that his has an agenda and that agenda, as I see it, is to to correct a biased view of argentine genetics that colides with national self identity.Dentren | Talk 16:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • only argentina, uruguai and chile are parts of southern cone.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.194.182 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~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)[reply]

-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)[reply]

~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)[reply]

  • southern cone not is only economy..india and china too have big economies and not are parts of southern cone.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.194.182 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the inclusion of Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru

There seems to be lot of discusions of the exact definition of the southern cone. Certainly there are more than one, and diferent definitions are used in diferent context. on what we all can agree is that Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are the core of the southern cone. Southern Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru are also included in some definitions. Of course the original definition was inspired in geography but demographically Southern Brazil shows a lot in common with Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. however Brazils huge population density "distorts" the demograpy the southern cone core. Another difference is the language. About Paraguay it difers a lot from southern Brazil, Argentina, chile and Uruguay but is geographical the "next" couthry to add if extending the southern cone to the north. Bolivia and Peru aswell Paraguay are considered part of the southern cone due to political similarities (Operacion Condor, 70s geopolitics, juntas, 80s return to democracy, 2000s turn to the left).Dentren | Talk 15:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • peru no cone sul?por que não metem a Bolivia tambem?

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).

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)[reply]

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
File:South cone map.png

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Biased

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)[reply]

In what do you base by refering to this macroarea as nonexistent? --Fercho85 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it recognized by any government bodies or international organization? If so who?Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conosur is a geographical region compromised of several countries that share many traits among them, just like regions such as Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Eastern Europe.
In any case, I don’t quite get the connection you’re tying to make here. But if you see any statement that might look biased as you previously said, please feel free to tag them.
Likeminas (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Worldbank on one of its reports, does, refer to Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay as the southern cone. See here [5]

Is that what you were looking for?

Likeminas (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The region does exists, but the article over-emphatises the fact that the sourthern cone is some means the most developed and rich region of Latin America. There are other aspects beside these that the article should cover.Dentren | Talk 11:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It also seems to overemphasizes demographics as well.
Likeminas (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jesusmariajalisco North America is not MExico by itself. The table is used to compare regions, not countries. So if you're going to add North America to the table, please do so correctly. And by that I mean, you would need to gather (ideally) statistics on the region as a whole, otherwise they could be obtained from the same source (for consistency's sake) and then the averages could be calculated manually.
However, if do you get numbers manually please add a note to the reference displaying the statistics for each country so that they can be easily verified by other editos. I'm sure that the U.S. and Canda with incomes per capita of over $30,000 will give you a bigger average than the current +14,000.
In reference to Paraguay. I did a quick google search and although a lot websites and books do include Paraguay as part of the Souther Cone [6], [7] other do not [8], [9].
So, it would be just safer to leave it out since it's not clear cut that it is part of it.
Likeminas (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is comparing the region to other regions.
See above.
PS:Puerto rico is part of the U.S.
Likeminas (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North America as a region is incomplete. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I want to assume good faith from you, but it looks like you’re trying to push Mexico by itself despite valid objections from other editors.
While I agree Brazil should be included in the calculations of the category Rest of south America, I have my reservations in terms of including North America, as it’s a mix bag of countries.
I suggest we make another category called Rest of Latin America in which Mexico and Brazil can be included together.
Likeminas (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Puerto Rico is not a sovereign nation, but instaed a territory of the U.S.
Brazil should be included in Rest of South America -Already said so.
And once again Mexico by itself is not a region. Why are you pushing it?
Likeminas (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I propose putting together Central America, Carribean, and Mexico as one category. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I already proposed including Mexico as part of Rest of Latin America or if you like it better, adding it into the Caribbean as Selecciones de la Vida suggests. But leaving Mexico representing North America by itself makes no geographical sense.
Likeminas (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree. It's not clear cut that Paraguay and Brazil are part of it. Some sources include them, others don't.
What all sources agree upon, is that Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are always part of it. Having said that, I believe it's better to err on the safe side.
By the way, I reverted you selective "Clean-up", and I added some sources.
Likeminas (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

It really works the other way around Likeminas. When a statement is questioned, sources must be provided to substantiate the claim, instead of asking for sources that would contradict the claim. You cannot say "my definition is correct until you have exhausted all sources in the world", but rather "the definition is correct when a source is provided to prove it.
In other words, as long as there are sources defining the Southern Cone as a geographical area whose name is derived by the shape of the land mass, if you want to claim that it is not geography but rather "common traits" that define the region in the English-speaking Academia, then the burden of proof lies on you. If the region is truly defined first and foremost by "common traits", you will have no trouble finding sources in reputable English general or specialized encyclopedias.
As a side note, there are very few encyclopedias, online or otherwise, that even define the term. It is eye-opening to see that not even Britannica has an entry on "Southern Cone" (which again, might imply WP:CBS).
--the Dúnadan 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

I guess I didn't explain myself properly, so I will try again. Sources prove claims, claims demand sources. There is one authoritative source that defines the Southern Cone as a geographic term. You cannot say, well, it could "plausibly" be defined otherwise, but you haven't found the source yet. Well, the moon could plausibly be defined also as a big mass of cheese, but we haven't found a source yet; we must ask all users that claim that it is only a rock in space, to exhaust all plausible sources before making a claim. That can't be. Do you see my point?
Per WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability, any unsubstantiated claim must be deleted or verified. Ergo, the burden of proof lies on you, or whichever user claims that "plausibly" other traits define the region and then include them in the article and sections or use them to exclude countries from the region. If authoritative sources define the region merely as a geographic term, then the article should reflect that and only that, to comply with inclusion standards in Wikpedia.
The etymology of the term is actually quite clear and self-evident—not to mention verifiable in the source provided: Southern Cone makes reference to the shape [i.e. that of a "cone"] of the continent. Unless you meant something entirely different by "etymology", I think this is evident that the etymology of "cone" is "cone".
None of the sources you provided (some of which I had already read) define the term, but rather use it indirectly. Whatever "plausible" traits you can infer from the definitions are, IMHO, subjective and bordering on WP:OR. Encarta is clear cut, it clearly defines the term, because it is a dictionary. In fact, I did not give a definition, I provided the definition of an authoritative source. Let me try to rephrase my argument: I agree: [most but not all of] the countries in the Southern Cone share economic/demographic traits, as you pointed out, but the term in itself was not created because of those similarities. (The similarities did not cause the term). Geography and shape created the term, similarities notwithstanding. And these similarities cannot be used neither as a definition nor as a necessary condition for the inclusion/exclusion of countries or regions of countries.
I meant WP:CSB not CBS, I apologize. My point is, if (and this needs to be proved) Cono Sur is a term used extensively in the Spanish-speaking Academia, that might not necessarily imply that the term is also current in English in the same way, but could be simply a direct translation of the term. In other words, and using the wording of the templates in the link provided, the term could "not represent a worldview, but only that of the Spanish-speaking world" or even "that of the countries defined by such a term". The fact that very few English geographic dictionaries and encyclopedias define term, might suggest that. I do not claim that this is the case, I simply said that the lack of sources might suggest that. A dive into the local library, especially into the encyclopedias of geography, might prove this suggestion wrong.
--the Dúnadan 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must do a difference between "etymology", "original usage" and "current usage". The etymology seems to be quite claer it is from the geography. About the original usage Im not sure. The current usage haves clearly diferent meanings depending on the contexts, in geopolitcal and military context Bolivia and Peru are often included but when speaking about demography Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru differs a lot from S. Brazil, Chile, argentina and Uruguay. I recomend you both to take a look a the article Western Europe where they already seems to have had this kind of discussion. Dentren | Talk 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



So including Bazil would make it look like a cone?
That’s a pretty deformed cone if you asked me.
In any case, I would take Encarta dictionary with a grain of salt.
Here’s why:
General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.[12]
The definition you posted is not authoritative, since it has no reference; and it’s very likely to have been done in a batch. Moreover, claiming that in English Academia, refers exclusively to a geographic area only because a definition in Encarta says so, it is entirely your opinion.
Now you keep saying, I’m making a claim on the definition of the term. So allow me to make this perfectly clear. No! I’m not giving any definitions. I have only suggested that geography by itself might not be the only consideration when it comes to the name and its usage.
I did say, however, and I still stand by it, that not all sources that mention SC countries include Brazil and Paraguay in their reports. Some sources include Paraguay, others mention parts of Brazil, whilst others go as far as saying that Bolivia and Peru are part of it as it is usually the case when reported on Operation Condor.
Nonetheless, all of these sources agree on one thing. And that is; Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are always part of it. While the article might need some tweaking (and additional souces of course), I believe it does a fairly decent job at explaining in what context some countries are included or excluded.
Likeminas (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a deep breath, and keep the discussion in amicable terms. First, the Encarta link that I provided is not to the encyclopedia, but to the dictionary. Dictionary entries are never signed. But, if by any chance you want to argue that it was written by a "freelancer", then we are left with no authoritative definitions for the Southern Cone —since it seems that no other dictionary or encyclopedia defines the term—but a mere usage of a translated term directly from Spanish (and we are indeed getting very close to WP:CSB). But I wouldn't go as far you have in discrediting Encarta as unauthoritative.
Now, let me quote you "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" (end of quote). Here you are clearly arguing that the Southern Cone was thus named not only due to the geographic location of the countries but because of their share traits. Fine, you do not use the word "definition", but you say "the name is given due...". If you prefer to use that phrase in lieu of definition, that is fine with me.
However, I have argued that this article should make no assumptions, explicit or implicit, about the traits that could "plausibly", "possibly", might have caused the Southern Cone to be "thus named" (which I interpreted as "thus defined"). The article places a lot of emphasis on the purported economic and demographic similarities of the countries, some of which are used to include/exclude other regions from the Southern Cone. If so, sources must be provided.
I insist, and I hope this time I am clear. According to the only English dictionary that defines the term, the Southern Cone was thus named because of the shape of the continent and it includes five countries. No more, no less, similarities notwithstanding. If similarities do exist, that is perfectly fine, but they region was not thus named, nor the term was created because of these similarities. Now, this is clearly not my opinion. And that leads me to the next point:
Let me quote you again: "Moreover, claiming that in English Academia, refers exclusively to a geographic area only because a definition in Encarta says so, it is entirely your opinion." (end of quote).
First and foremost, please read WP:OR, I really, really doubt that providing a reference (the only one available) and using it to back up my argument (Southern Cone refers to a geographic region) could ever, in any way or any circumstance be classified as original research. The fact that there is a source clearly proves that this is not "original" research. Whether you want to discredit Encarta or not, that is another matter.
I thought my argument (about the moon made of cheese) was crystal clear. Maybe not. So I'll try to make it even clearer: You cannot say "even if you provided a source to back up your claim, you are wrong (or engaging in OR, or what have you) because you have not found another source that could back up my claim". That makes no sense. But that is what you are saying when you tell me (and I am paraphrasing), "even though you found a dictionary that defines the Southern Cone as a geographical term, you are wrong (or engaging in OR, or what have you) because you have not found a source that would prove that possibly the term refers to a region based on economic/demographic terms".
Maybe there are English sources that define the term according to other traits explicitly, and this is important, the sources must be "explicit", not "plausibly", not "implicitly", not "possibly" not "maybe", but explicitly. By WP:Verifiability the only way we can include that "plausibility" is if and only if it can be verified. So, I ask you: please provide a English authoritative source that would say that the Southern Cone refers explicitly to a region based on economic and demographic shared traits besides its geographic location. They can exist, I am not saying they can't, but they need to be provided.
Let me repeat myself: similarities do exist amongst [most of the] countries in the Southern Cone. Just as similarities do exist among the countries in Central America, those similarities did not create the geographic term of either region. Central America is Central America regardless of the similarities. Western Europe, on the other hand was used to distinguish market economies from communist economies, geography notwithstanding (that is why Finland was "Western Europe" despite being the East). If you can prove (through sources) that Southern Cone was used to distinguish certain countries from others, geography notwithstanding, then you have made your case that "plausibly", well, not plausibly, but "actually" the Southern Cone is used, refers to, is named after, or [and I know didn't say "define" but] it's defined based on similar shared traits rather than (or in addition to) geography.
--the Dúnadan 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Ehem... dictionaries are an example of English Academia. Who do you think writes published dictionaries? Amateurs? Encarta is a valid source.
I agree, you have "suggested" possibilities. Perfect. But suggested possibilities must not drive the content of the article. What part of this am I not able to communicate?
Please tell me, what unsourced and dubious affirmation am I making? Unsourced? For the zilionth time, Encarta is a valid source. What part of saying "the only dictionary that defines the term in English does not make any reference other than geography" is dubious? That is quite a spurious accusation against me. I have looked extensively in English encyclopedias and dictionaries for alternative definitions, but I haven't found anything. You cannot, really, cannot, say that you have a "suggestion" or a "possibility" and because I haven't found a source to prove your suggestion, then my arguments are dubious.
The main criterion of the inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability, not suggestions. I have provided a verifiable source. If you disagree you must provide another verifiable source. But you cannot say, "your affirmation is dubious because there must be, out there, somewhere in the world, a different definition, but you just haven't found it and neither have I, but it is a possibility or a suggesion". It doesn't work that way.
And you failed to understand my comment regarding Western Europe. It can be proved through many reputable references that Western Europe has multiple meanings. But that is not the case with the Southern Cone unless you provide a source to prove otherwise. Not suggestions, not possibilities: sources. Again, I repeat, the burden of proof lies on you for your "suggestions", or "possibilities". Please provide a source! If not, then we should clean the article from all other "implicit" references to demographic and economic criteria that do not define the region, according to the only available dictionary that defines the region, so far. If there are alternative and verifiable definitions then let's include them. I don't oppose the inclusion of whatever other criteria define the region as long as they are verifiable.
I beg other users to intervene, because I fail to understand what part of what I have been repeatedly saying isn't clear!
--the Dúnadan 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dudan, Take it easy...
I totally understand the five pillars of Wikipedia. I push for Verifiability in articles myself.
I previously suggested the plausibility of other usages and/or connotations for the term, because I believed some sources could be found. It proved to harder than I thought. But I did find a good and reliable source that discusses the southern cone in a lot of detail.
Yes there are common traits in terms of economy, history, demographics, language, etc…
It’s all there in the Encyclopedia of the developing world, starting from page 1474 under Southern Cone: History and Economic development.

Here’s the link.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3mE04D9PMpAC&pg=PA1474&lpg=PA1474&dq=the+encyclopedia+of+the+developing+world+southern+cone&source=bl&ots=6yMQvHjdA1&sig=CBu_AmODroAkzfpFLInHshwDCAQ&hl=en&ei=yEwXSvKtG9LHtgfkm8nfDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA1474,M1
Demanding sources is cool.
Working to get some. cooler.
Likeminas (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your conciliatory tone, and for the source you provided. At least we now have two sources that define the region. And both refer to a geographic location. Citing from the Encyclopedia of the Developing World:
"The Southern Cone refers to the countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, which are located in the southern half of South America and resembles a cone shape, with the tip towards Antarctica"
Same definition as Encarta: refers to five countries based on location in a continent whose southern shape resembles a cone.
After that, it expounds on the characteristics of the region, geographical, historical, demographical, etc. But note that the Southern Cone does not refer to a "region with x and y shared traits", but to a region whose countries happen to have those traits. There is a huge difference.
Moreover, the fact that two reputable sources have a clear definition of the Southern Cone comprised of five countries, I think we should change the introduction accordingly. Its not "sometimes Paraguay" and the "southern "region of Brazil, but the five countries together.
--the Dúnadan 03:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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.

[13]

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=jXwPdtA9Z6IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Our+Earth%27s+Changing+Land:+An+Encyclopedia+of+Land-use+And+Land-cover+Change#PRA1-PA567,M1



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)[reply]

Excellent research. All of the sources above could be used to improve this article substantially. But I differ slightly in some of the conclusions you are drawing from them. Let me outline my arguments this time:
  • Geography does not "play an important role", geography defines the region. Vast difference. All sources provided, yours and mine, all define the region based on geography and the countries it comprises. The first source makes an excellent distinction between definition and usage: The Southern Cone refers to countries located in a certain region (south of the Tropic of Capricorn) but in political geography its usage has traditionally excluded one [Brazil], but more recently it has added two [Brazil and Bolivia]. Excellent source. The last source says the southern cone refers to x, y and z countries... these countries have common features. There is a difference in saying "These countries, which are referred to as the Southern Cone, have common features that distinguish them from LA" from saying "These countries are referred to the Southern Cone because the have common features that distinguish them from LA". Please bear with me, since this leads me to my second point.
  • You ask "are there any shared traits amongst these countries"? Yes. I never said otherwise. And if you think I said there aren't any common features, then either I failed to communicate properly or you failed to read my arguments. What I said is that the region is defined geographically similarities notwithstanding. In other words, the shared traits do not define the region, even if they do exist. I said it several times. Why did I point that out? I feared that by setting common traits as the definition, users could justify the inclusion or exclusion of countries geography notwithstanding, when, in reality, it is the other way around. If politics, economics and ethnography define the region, then the region should never include certain countries. On the other hand, if geography defines the region (as it has been proven with ample evidence), then the common traits amongst some or all of the countries determine its usage. Does this make sense? Let me put it this way: the region refers to a geographical location where five countries are located. Most of these countries have common features that distinguish them from the rest of Latin America, which in turn has determined the diverse usages the term has had, depending on the feature being highlighted: ethnography, politics, economics or the existence of a Common Market or an Association of Nations.
  • Finally, do all sources include so far "without exception Brazil or Paraguay". Indeed no. The issue here is where to put the word "occasionally". As you can imagine, it is a different thing to say "The Southern Cone refers to five countries but occasionally to four or three", than to say "The Southern Cone refers to three countries and occasionally to four or five".
--the Dúnadan 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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;

  • We have established that the term was created due geography.
  • We have established that SC countries share common traits
  • We have established that English Academia does not refer exclusively to a geographic area when it uses the term.
  • We have established that the term has evolved over time (thus having different connotations) to denote a larger area also including Brazil and Bolivia.
  • We have established that not all five countries are unambiguously included all the time in the SC.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See last bullet above.
I rather get rid of the tables all together.
Likeminas (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Included in Western civilization?

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)[reply]

The southern cone as weel as Argentina, Chile and Latin America in general have a complex national identity in means that these contries are often sed from aoutside as eno cultural entity, althought these countries actually from a mosaic, where diferent indigenous grops met diferent group of spanish colonist and interacted in diferent ways, and later on black people were brought to the scene, folowed by a heterogenous European and Asian immigration. The term latin-american was in fact imposed from outside and many people in the southern cone con sider themsevelsves to have more in commor with Spaniards and italiands than with their neigboring countries.I would like to include this stuff about "identity" in this article and many more, I havent found any source yet. Dentren | Talk 21:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


All Latin America is part of the "Western civilization". Race has nothing to do with Western civilization. All Latin America was colonized by European powers, and the bulk of Latin American culture came from these countries. Latin America does have non-European influences, as well as the United States also has a huge Black African cultural influence, what makes no difference at all, since the European culture predominated in all the countries of Americas. Latin American culture is directly descended from the culture from Ancient Rome, brought by the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers. That's why it is called Latin America (from Latin, the language spoken in Rome). Race is a minor detail to include a country as Western or not. And by all definitions, Latin America is Western, with roots in Latin European culture, while Northern America has roots in Germanic European culture. It's a matter of culture, not race. The fact that the Southern Cone has more Whites than the rest of Latin America does not make this region more or less "Western" than the rest of Latin America. They all have the same basic cultural roots, which is Iberian. Opinoso (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this article tries to sell the idea that the Southern Cone is a copy of Europe and a completly different part of Latin America (as if it was a big deal). It is not. It did have a greater impact of more recent European immigration, particularly Argentina and Uruguay. Chile had a minor impact of recent European immigration, even though this article tries to sell the idea it did. The more recent European immigrants did contribute with newer cultural elements to this region, particularly in food, architecture, way of life. Most of the immigrants were Iberians and Italians, who have a similar culture with Latin Americans. This region remained similar to the rest of Latin America, because the rest of Latin America has the bulk of its culture also rooted in Europe, particularly in Spain and Portugal. All Latin Americans are related to each other because of the culture, not because of the race. And the culture, being largely of European roots, makes all Latin Americans related to Europeans, not matter if they are Whites, Blacks, Purple or Pink. It's culture, not race or skin color. Opinoso (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile again

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)[reply]

Here are some sources that says the white coloured people are mayority in Chile.[1][2][3] But the ealty is of couse more difficult than that. I think Chile is difficult case bucause the mestizo-white limit is so diffuse.
We should maybe include a section about "Whiten ideologies" or "Identity" in the article.Dentren | Talk 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Detren! Opinoso (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, now can all the racial and ethnic information in the aticle be put there, so that it does apear everwhere. There ae however some discordancies in that sections, I will try to fix soon.Dentren | Talk 01:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The opposite. Some other user was trying to paint the Southern Cone as a copy of Europe. Despite the dominant ancestry found there is of Europen origin, the region has also large roots in Amerindian and African ancestors. It's not a simple copy of Europe. It is much more complex and diverse than Europe is. That's the point. And all those racial informations were needed, even though they may sound "out of place", so that in future nobody will appear again trying to sell the idea in this article that all the inhabitants of the Southern Cone are Europeans, and that the Amerindians and Africans simply "disappered" from it. Even though in "whiten ideologies" it was the desire, it is far from being the reality. Opinoso (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than defining this region solely based on comparison to Europe (which is of course important), it is important to remark what makes it "unique". That is ethnically speaking the complex mix of people from different countries in which the Spanish creole inheritage is the matrix.
By the way shouldnt the southern cones "football performace" be noted in the article? I mean Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have all won at least two times the world cup, and Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay have all hosted the cup, and Paraguay seems to have done quite well recently. It is my belief that when people identifies football as something typical Latin American or South American it due to the football culture in the Southern Cone (in the caribean we have more baseball).Dentren | Talk 17:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion Dentren. Likeminas (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many more important informations than just link this region to Europe. Opinoso (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

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)[reply]

  • brazil is center-eastern of south america; southern cone = southern south america =/= center-eastern.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.194.182 (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only speaks of "ethnic groups"

This article only focuses on the ethnic issue, ignoring other relevant sections, but while I explain some discrepancies, such as:

1) As an example, about 56% the of Argentines of origin amerindian. This appointment arose from a misinterpretation of the article in the daily Clarin. The study by Dr. Corach and Silvina Heguy on which it relied to write your article never gets to that conclusion.
The study analyzed 100 samples of southern Argentina, 220 samples from the north to center. If we take an average of these 320 samples to obtain 56% (actually 58%) contained genes Amerindians. As you have noticed, not taken into account that more than half the population is in the center of the country, so that 56% does not refer to the people of Argentina, but the average among these 3 groups of samples. Clarin however, decided to exaggerate by saying that 56% of Argentines have Native American genes; drawing their own conclusions when the study's findings did not say that.
The percentage of Native American descendants of Argentina would have analyzed a number of samples proportional to population density in each sector of the country. So most of the samples have come from the most populated cities (mostly in the Midwest) and Buenos Aires, Rosario, Mendoza, Santa Fe, etc. Something like 200 samples from the center of the country, 70 northern and 30 south.
I found an article more seriously, that is about the same study. This can clearly see that at no time conlusión reaches 56%: [15] . As an additional observation, I noticed that in several sectors of the article speaks of miscegenation between Europeans, Amerindians and Blacks. The latter in my opinion is a subjective conclusion, without references.
2) When speaking of miscegenation or mestizos not refers to people with 50% of Spanish ancestry and 50% of indigenous ancestry as in the colony, when speaking of mestizo refers to people of inheritance mixed in the biological and, more importantly, culturally, and the term applies particularly to people with European and indigenous heritage, regardless of whether it is 50-50 (a "mongrel" in the colony), three quarters indigenous (" coyote ") or any other proportion. it would be clear that although much of population in the Southern Cone is biologically mixed, it is not phenotypically as shown by most of the studies presented in the article .--Ccrazymann (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong interpretation of the source: "The Chilean Gradient Sociogenética social and ethical implications"

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.

1) The source Sociogenética The Chilean Gradient and social ethical implications is very useful for sociological analysis Sociogenética gradient, but the figures quoted in it (those that give the average course of mixing of various social strata) are views of the author, and not based on genetic works such as those made by other sources, such as the source of the Human Genetics Program at the University of Chile
2) Another point: The study used as blood donors at 150 persons San Jose Hospital in Santiago de Chile. That is, is very biased, and although that serves to demonstrate segregation between social groups and that no significant differences with the "Hispanics" in America, does not state that these data are indicators of genetic contributions relating to indigenous and European ancestors of the Chilean population.
3) "The use of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome testing refer only to a line of ancestors each, becoming the ancestors of other invisible lines. Most Chileans are 30% mixture by their ancestors native aboriginal (Amerindian women who were married with the Spanish conquerors). According to this study, the degree of Amerindian mixture in the middle class is at 23.7% and 37.1% in the lower class [16], which confirms that the degree of mixing depends on the social level.
4) Propose this: the Chilean population is mainly of European origin, but low genetic studies "the use of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome test results show the following: the European component is predominant in the Chilean upper class, the middle classes, 72.3% European component and 27.7% of mixed aboriginal and lower classes at 62.9% European component and 37.1% mix of Aboriginal.--Ccrazymann (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The changes are very subtle important enought in this controversial article. This article is really needing help from experts and a reestructuring so that not 70% of the article speaks about racial characterisics and genetics. Dentren | Talk 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal sounds good and can be supported by other sources, see Chilean people for more info. Unfortunaly, this article was bombarded left and right from fanatics who believe Chile is a sort scandinavian country in south america and their opponents who belive it to be the most Amerindian country.Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genetic studies should not be removed. They are more reliable than prone to bias descriptions not rooted in biology. Their results may be contradictory, the information of course is not perfect, but they are the best reference certainly. To remove them from the page is incorrect.187.20.112.89 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI".
  2. ^ Argentina, como Chile y Uruguay, su población está formada casi exclusivamente por una población blanca e blanca mestiza procedente del sur de Europa, más del 90% E. García Zarza, 1992, 19.
  3. ^ "Genetic epidemiology of single gene defects in Chile".

southern brazil

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)[reply]

error in the map

  • sao paulo not is part of southern cone, only southern brazil; sao paulo is southeastern brazil.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.184.5 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • northern parana in the north of southern brazil not is part of southern cone.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.194.182 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Cone is just Chile, Argentina and Uruguay... no one else.

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)[reply]

Not neutral

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)[reply]

Wrong interpretation of the source: "University of Chile"

1) The source: The study University of Chile used as blood donors at 150 persons San Jose Hospital in Santiago de Chile. That is, is very biased, and although that serves to demonstrate segregation between social groups and that no significant differences with the "Hispanics" in America, does not state that these data are indicators of genetic contributions relating to European and Indigenous ancestors of the Chilean population.----Ccrazymann (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in the global markets

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)[reply]

Climate as defining borders

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)[reply]

Climate as defining borders

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)[reply]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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, 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The "Summary of socio-economic performance indicators for Latin American countries" chart is completely arbitrary

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)[reply]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Cone"