Talk:Chile/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Self edit war re languages

SFBB (talk · contribs), I don't know if you plan to continue an edit war with yourself, but just in case you do let me respectfully suggest: "ITS inclusion is ad hoc," not "IT'S inclusion ..."Uporządnicki (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: i reverted myself, because i made a blooper with the infobox (and it was the fastest way to correct while i was searching for the problem)....and yes...of course i know it's its inclusion and not it's inclusion...and that i'm missing an in' between name and mapudungun, and an s at the end of others, and a question mark, and that mapudungun should be capitalized. anything else that you need to teach me? the edit summary is not published and i usually don't bother proofreading it, as long as it's understandable. SFBB (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

and i also know that I should b capitalized....no need to point that out either.SFBB (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

Please correct the aweful translation of "Por la razon o la fuerza." In US English it is "By reason or force" and none of that might whatever. How do I know? I was born in Chile in 1974 and lived there through 1988 and in the US from 1988 on. 2604:CA00:1CC:10EA:0:0:460:7091 (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Grammar fix in Hydrography section

Page currently reads:

They commonly extend from the Andes to the Pacific Ocean, flowing in an East to West.

Grammar could be much improved by changing to "flowing from East to West".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambroseya (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done For your reference, here's the diff. Thank you! HoneycrispApples (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

The population of Chile is 19.2 M not 17.5 M and i know it says as of 2017 but i want it to be the present time XDturtle (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◎ | melecie | t 06:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Skyline Concepción, Chile.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

191.126.58.78 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Add Rapa Nui (Easter Islands) in the Chilean map

 Already done It's already on the map, just so small as to make it difficult to see. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues in the Border Disputes with Peru Section

This section needs serious attention: severe mistakes in it, introduced by user Judypen in a 2018 edit, were previously thoroughly analyzed and criticized in a talk post which, unfortunately, got archived very quickly without being addressed. Despite containing the serious problems described therein, the section is still not fixed as of today, August 22, 2021, i.e. two years after having been signalled.

If you don't request Wikipedia:Edit requests, it's highly likely that your concerns get lost. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

The fourth sentence in the first paragraph of the post reads - Chile is the southernmost country in the world, the closest to Antarctica, and borders Peru to the north, Bolivia to the northeast, Argentina to the east, and the Drake Passage in the far south. Chile also controls the Pacific islands of Juan Fernández, Isla Salas y Gómez, Desventuradas, and Easter Island in Oceania.

- The fact of Chile being the southernmost country in the world, the closest to Antarctica is incorrect. Several countries, including Australia and New Zealand, are both further south than Chile and both closer to Antarctica. Just the two incorrect facts need to be removed.

Many thanks. 2404:4408:1300:7F00:6451:864D:56C2:B491 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Does List of countries by southernmost point clarify that? SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Southern tip of Chile is ~-55 degrees, southern tip of New Zealand is ~-47. It's also about 1,000 miles closer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Big error help me fix

In one sentence in the Chile#21st_century chapter, there is a big error in linking. "Frei Ruiz-Tagle was succeeded in 2000 by Socialist Ricardo Lagos, who won the presidency in an unprecedented runoff election against Joaquín Lavín of the rightist Alliance for Chile.[61]". The problem is with the words "runoff election", it links to the 2010 election. The correct article is this one right here: 1999–2000 Chilean presidential election.

Please fix.

 Done Eevee01^(talk) 09:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-added the "developing country" fact

Avoiding the fact that Chile is still a developing country and only mentioning highlights in the introduction may mistakenly make people believe the country is developed, which is a false statement. Any changes in this regard MUST be done after discussion or they will be reverted.

WHO is saying this?? WHO is DECLARING that they WILL BE reverted??? Who are you, and how did you manage to post this ultimatum without any kind of signature--even one of the automatic ones? And where are you obtaining this alleged "fact"? Uporządnicki (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

All right, let me walk back my "who are you?" rhetoric. I wonder why this particular Talk page has so much here with no identification (even the automatic kind) or date. But there it is, and I can glean it from the history.

But as far as "will be reverted" without discussion first, I suggest you have things backwards. You are suggesting PUTTING IN an unsubstantiated point (because you say it's a "fact"), and it must be removed only after discussion. I would say, rather, that the unsubstantiated point should be LEFT OUT, pending discussion--EVEN IF the result is incomplete. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Who am i". The "developing country" line was already there, yet it was removed by an user alleging that "it undermines Chile's economic potential, is biased and unconstructive". As we know, that argument is not valid if not useless. So, until some user proves that the HDI and the "developing country" are biased indicators, or that Chile is indeed a "developed country", the line shall remain there. If not, other users should be allowed to remove the developing country status of other countries of the region, or classify higher ranking countries like Saudi Arabia or Mauritius as "developed" which is nonsense. Lenoir9898 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It shall, shall it? A bit dictatorial, perhaps? Yes, that particular argument is invalid, but that doesn't mean the line still belongs. I would think, rather, that until "developed" or "developing" is reliably documented, NEITHER statement should be there. When you say "the line shall remain there," what you mean is, Lenoir shall put it back. When you say, "they will be reverted," what you mean is, Lenoir will revert them. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Boiling this down, you're basing all this on your assertion that it is a "fact" the Chile is a developing country, not a developed one. And I'm wondering if it is, indeed. All I have is your say-so. If someone just throws out a statement like that, I don't know if they actually know what they're talking about, or if they just figure, well, it's one of those Latin American places where they speak Spanish, so, uh ... Uporządnicki (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So, should we question every "is a developing country" line in every wiki page of every country of the region? Why do you think we should "find more evidence" for Chile while leaving uncited "is developing" lines in other countries? Lenoir9898 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lenoir, I'm coming around to your thinking on the question itself. But there's still the matter of your rather arrogant, dictatorial approach to it; that is still problematic: it SHALL stay until it's proven false--as it Wikipedia is your bailiwick. No, I'd say, as a general rule, that until it's shown true or false, it's best left out altogether.

That said, I did a little digging around (as opposed to declarations of how things will be) here in Wikipedia and elsewhere. And I'm finding that various UN agencies and other international organizations concerned with such matters do class Chile and Argentina as "developing," or in various ways that amount to that. It's a surprise. I have not been to either country, but I have the impression that in general, life there is on a par with much of central and western Europe. But these agencies I refer to generally class only the western European nations, Australia and New Zealand, the major central and western European countries, and maybe Japan as developed. "Developing" seems to be treated very broadly. It seems odd to me when I actually saw Chile and Argentina listed in the same categories with Madagascar (where I have not been, but my friend who is fond of traveling there describes it as "fourth world") and Zambia (where I HAVE been).

But there it is. And I also see that statements like that are commonly made in the intro areas of country articles in Wikipedia. We don't necessarily cite things in the opening paragraphs as thoroughly as we do in the rest of articles, and some of these statements are cited and some are not. There are also relevant statistics in the infoboxes. Maybe some overall policy or guideline is needed (something beyond Lenoir says so).

That said, I still maintain that we don't keep a "fact" in until it's proved wrong. Until I looked, the only indication I had that this WAS a fact was your say-so. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So, your point is that, despite finding that several UN and other agencies classify Chile as "developing", you want to remove that line because you have the "impression" that their indicators are more similar to western europe? If we are going to follow that logic and ignore what other agencies say, do you want to know how i know thats false? Because i live in south america, i know the current state of the majority of countries here, and they are far from being "close" to the ones of western europe. Oh, it's good that you have been to Zambia, that's cool and all of that, but we are talking about SA, a continent where i live, and describing countries with objective studies like those made by agencies, not by "impressions". It's common to see chileans trying to edit the page to make Chile look like a developed country, but seeing a foreigner from outside SA telling a south american that they have different "impressions" about our own continent? That's new. Guess we will have to change Peru's page because everybody has the "impression" that only llamas live there.

No. That is not my point. And by now, I think that trying to get you to see a point is a waste of time. Even if one concedes a bit, you'll make it into something you can argue with. You've managed to garble everything I'm saying to where I throw up my hands. Clearly, instead of coming to an understanding, you just want to hammer into everyone's head that you're right. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of who's right, but addressing your attitude that you're in charge of this article because you know the facts--therefore, it's incumbent upon you to threaten any deviation with the statement "You will be reverted," may I suggest you read Wikipedia:Edit warring, if only the bit at the top, where it says, "This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion." And discussion might be, these international agencies all class the country as "developing," not I know this is a fact, so you will all goose step to it, under pain of anathema reversion. Uporządnicki (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank god i don't live in wikipedia. Gotta love how you, the moment I told you i'm from South America, went from "we polish people have a different perception of Chile" to "it's impossible to argue with you". Well, guess we should remove the developing line from every country in the region, which it's already done with Chile, unsurprisingly. It's not news to anyone that chilean users edit the page to make Chile look like a "developed and first world country" which has been done already with this page. First the line was removed because it "undermined Chile's potential" and now because "we have different percepcions despise what every other agency says". Love those childish arguments, they make my day.Lenoir9898 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that now, when you're putting words in my mouth, you'll actually put quotes around them is very telling. You're so wrapped up in your preternatural conviction that you're right and the world is wrong that you've been incapable of seeing that fairly early on in this, uhm, discussion, I more or less (sort of) came around to seeing your original point about Chile being a developing country; by now it's gone Lenoir = right; everybody else = wrong to everyone else is wrong WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH LENOIR OR NOT. It's about your dictatorial arrogance--it will be this way because it's true, and if anybody removes it, it "will be reverted." Not, Lenoir will keep reverting it (i.e., engaging in a revert war), but it "WILL BE" reverted, as if your say-so constitutes Wikipedia policy. A fact might be a fact, but there's nothing wrong with leaving it out--and it can even be advisable to leave it out--if it isn't well attested (and suggesting that it must be added because leaving it out could make people think the opposite is just absurd). You might very well be right about Chile--as I acknowledged some time ago (and yet you continued a phantom argument). You really should get some help. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

Change "A second vote is scheduled for 11 April 2021, to select 155 Chileans who will form the convention which will draft the new constitution" to past tense. 181.43.37.197 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

THE PRESIDENT OF CHILE IS SEBASTIAN PIÑERA TILL MARCH 2022 , NOT GAYBRIEL BORIC. 191.179.180.78 (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already says that Pinera is the president. RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

Chile is a developed country due to its high income status, not developing. 2600:1700:22F0:4A10:A9D5:3BAE:BB88:836D (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

"Mestizo" and "white" are not considered ethnic groups in Chile, why would a foreign intelligence agency (CIA) be given the last word on the issue? It seems that CIA is attempting the apply a race-based approach to ethnicity-based on race which is common in the United States. Besides being US-centric and without proof of people actually identifying as such, the approach conflates race and ethnicity. Actually, the Chilean state considers the country's population "ethnically homogeneous". Albeit that approach gives some cue on Chilean identity it may also be wrong, but the article needs some nuance rather than relying blindly on flawed views of a foreign intelligence agency. Dentren | ^Talk 11:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Mestizo/White are ethnic group in the sense that they are different from the indigenous ethnic groups of Chile, by having Spanish as their mother/native language and a European/Spanish based culture as well as racial identity. Therefore, they perfectly fit the definition of a ethnic group. Neplota (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

However, ethnicity in Latin America can be a little confusing, for example White, Black and Asian people all speak the same language (Portuguese), have same religion (Christian) and culture yet based on racial identity are classified into different ethnic groups on the Wikipedia page.Neplota (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that your definition of "ethnic group" or the Central Intelligence Agency's one? Another view is that ethnic groups themselves see themselves as such, and no such indication exists regards to CIA's racialized views on White/Mestizos as an ethnic group. Dentren | ^Talk 11:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I can add that this [1] CIA-page does not mention anything about "Mestizo" but seem to have replaced "White and mestizo" with "White and non-indigenous". The reason for this change is suspicious. Have the ethnic composition of Chile changed in such direction in 10 years? Does it reflect some changes about what is academically or politically correct in terms of ethnic terminilogy? Are any of such changes valid from a global point of view, not just the US, Anglosphere or CIA?

I may repeat some points here but it is biased to overly rely on CIA information for ethnic groups. I don't see why Chilean censuses or other reliable sources would be appropriate. Also, the CIA factbook is a subpar source since it does not appear to show its sources. Did the CIA held a census in Chile or from where does their numbers derive? Dentren | ^Talk 17:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I did some digging, it seems the World Factbook got it's information from the 2017 Chilean census, which had a few questions about self-identification of indigenous background. Given there are non-White and non-Indigenous Chilean minorities but the census does not ask about non-indigenous identification, I think "white and non-indigenous" is a fair classification, though "European and non-indigenous" or just "Non-Indigenous" would probably be better worded. 209.51.86.147 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If the Chilean government themselves isn't doing any detailed questions on ethnic background, and the only question was on self-identified Indigenous origins, then I'm not sure if we should continue adding an ethnic group section. Especially given how dubious the CIA Factbook may be. I think it would be best to just do along the lines of Mexico's page. Which only mentions the country's Indigenous groups and other foreign ethnic groups in the infobox. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: - Just replying to the proper comment. Technically, "Asian" isn't considered a "race" or "colour" in Latin America, even if it is considered one in Anglophone countries. Interesting that you mentioned the Lusophone country of Brazil, because they, like Uruguay actually use the term "Yellow" (or Amarela or Amarilla) to describe people of East Asian descent. I have no clue what "race" or "colour" other Asian ethnic regions (i.e - West, South and Southeast Asians) would be classified as in Latin America, but it's probably not "Yellow". West Asians are considered part of the Asian community in Brazil though.[2][3] (Pg. 15) I guess its not "politically correct" in English, so translated sources usually omit that. Which I guess shows how arbitrary "racial" categories are. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Dentren: that the CIA Factbook seems like a dubious source, and if there are actual, official censuses from the governments or related demographic organizations of the countries in question, that would probably be more reliable to cite. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"White" (Blanco) is a racialized label most Chileans don't use to identify their ethnicity. Nor do Chilean government institutions and censuses use it. The CIA appear to routinely and forcibly push US-centric racialized ethnic classifications into other countries. Dentren | ^Talk 09:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dentren: - it looks like the Chilean government doesn't keep meticulous records of ethnic/demographic groups like the United States does, and according to an IP user, the CIA Factbook got its information from the Chilean census which only had questions about Indigenous ancestry. Not every country keeps records of ethnicity or "race" and not everybody in the world sees their identity through the same lens as the United States. As such, the CIA Factbook does not seem like a reliable source of information and I don't think we should add American-centric sources for the demographics/ethnic groups sections of countries outside of the United States. Discussion for other countries has lead to the removal of the ethnic group section in their respective infoboxes.

I've looked more into other countries, and as you said, it does look like the CIA Factbook pushes US-centric racizlied/ethnic classification terms into other countries. For example, the Brazil page[4] mentions that 1.1% of the country identifies as "Asian", but there is no "Asian race" in Brazil. The actual census category was "Yellow" (Amarela) for people of East Asian descent. And it appears people of West Asian descent (like Lebanese or Syrians) are considered "Asian" by the Brazilian demographic agency[5] (Quote: descendentes e os asiáticos – japoneses, chineses, coreanos, libaneses, sírios, entre outros) but not part of the "Yellow" or Amarela category. This contrasts with the United States, where "Asian" is considered a "race". Clear Looking Glass (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Clear Looking Glass, thank you for edit on the page. The racialized CIA content has been a nuisance for years in this article. It is important to keep an eye on this issue as it may be re-added by other users. Race and ethnicity issues in Wikipedia are tricky as they can arise suspicions of some political/ethnic agenda being pushed. Therefore it can eventually be good to refer to this talk page to explain why sourced content was removed.

I have also noticed the inappropriate reliance on the CIA factbook for ethnicities in other Latin America articles. I will rise this issue in Brazil. I would be grateful if you could help explain the rationale in talk:Brazil. Dentren | ^Talk 10:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

History section

I’m concerned about the slant and possible outright errors in the History section around Allende. He did not commit suicide; he was assassinated. 2A02:C7D:7AD8:9800:5C65:E67:F8CC:E2D4 (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There was a 2011 court ruling, after digging up his body and fresh autopsy, which confirmed it was suicide, confirmed by a higher court on appeal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation, please.

It is 'CHEE-lay', yes? Not 'chilly'? 110.174.52.185 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Add a reference to Köppen climate classification in the figure

Add a reference to Köppen climate classification to the image in the Climate and Hydrography section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile#Climate_and_hydrography).

Although there's a link in the body of the section, I went to see first the image and I didn't know about the Köppen classification, so I think it would be useful to also link it in there. Etra0 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Modern Latin America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Case.w.b. (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Katherine.Holt (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why has Chile-Topography no footnotes?

Anonym2323 (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.21.2.146 (talk)

Chile's Development Status

Echoing the sentiment below, it seems that adding "developing country" to the article is not only unconstructive, but also bordering on innacurate. The sources for the designation listed on the article are the UN's Human Development Report (UNHDR) and the CIA's World Factbook. After looking into this research, there are a few inconsistencies. In the UNHDR, Chile has a higher HDI than other countries that are classified on Wikipedia as developed and/or lack the designation "developing country." These include Slovakia (lower HDI than Chile, but its WP article designates it as "developed" with no mention of it being a "developing country") and Hungary (lower HDI than Chile, but its WP article has no mention of "developing country"). Meanwhile, not a single country above it in the list of countries by HDI carries the designation "developing country." One could argue that on page 304, Chile is listed under "Developing Regions," however this does not designate it as a developing country since this information is "in aggregate" for the region (see the note on the bottom). This is why it lists Singapore, one of the top 12 most developed countries in the world by HDI and described as "developed" in its WP article, as a developing region. Singapore is most certainly not a developing country, but merely in a developing region. On the other hand, the CIA World Factbook is listed as another source that states Chile is a developing country. However, the entry for Chile in the CIA World Factbook states the complete opposite: that Chile is "on par with developed countries" by many measures, which is particularly notable since it appears that as of at least 2022 the Factbook no longer classifies every country of the world as developing or developed. It appears that the revision I made was reverted incorrectly. @Pristino: Maybe we can discuss this and figure out how to change it -Dvit123 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The UN report that you yourself cite mentions on page 268 that Chile is one the few OECD countries that is still in "developing" status:

Of the 38 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members, 33 are considered developed countries and 5 (Costa Rica, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Türkiye) are considered developing countries.

Also, the CIA Factbook overview of Chile refers to the country being "on par with developed countries" only in relation to its life expectancy. I sincerely hope this settles the matter. Pristino (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is necessarily a subjective decision, given that different sources give different descriptions. The Wikipedia Article for "Developing Countries" includes three maps with three different results for Chile, based on differing IMF, UN, and World Bank definitions, and states that the definition is "not universally agreed on". Chile is hard to classify because it is close to the dividing line on many metrics, including health, education, and income. It is either the most developed of developing countries or the least developed of developed countries. Perhaps we could try to recognize this complexity somehow? Or avoid the developed/developing label altogether, as it seems less useful in the Chilean context. Diegojosesalva (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chile Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Earthquake

“ and over a million people lost their homes”: is not true 211.36.156.106 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Information missing under Religion

In another Wiki article titled "History of the Jews in Chile", there is current information that could be added. I have copied and pasted below from that article...

Chile is home to the third-largest Jewish community in South America. Chile has an estimated 18,300 Jews, according to the American Jewish Yearbook 2019, representing 0.1% of the total Chilean population. The total amount of Chileans with Jewish ancestry, however, is roughly 175,000 (defined as people having at least one Jewish parent or grandparent, and any spouse of such person). CheifinEditor (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

The photo showing the Antarctica part as part of Chile is wrong. That is part of the argentinean country not Chile. 181.9.148.11 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Chile. Please make your request at the talk page for the file concerned. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's because that part is claimed bt Argentina too. 2600:1700:8230:9F50:9D52:AE79:9C07:7677 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

—Flyerz999 (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @Flyerz999: Don't reopen edit requests unless you can address the issues raised by other editors. In addition, the caption for the map clearly labels the area as "claimed but uncontrolled territory", so I don't see what's wrong with it. Liu1126 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)