|WikiProject Argentina||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|Patagonia has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Chile||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Another Chile vs Argentina fight?
- 2 References
- 3 La Pampa's membership in the interprovincial grouping "Patagonia"
- 4 The northern border (zone)
- 5 Map?
- 6 Clarification
- 7 Wales and Patagonia
- 8 Patagonian Giants
- 9 Disappearing Lake
- 10 Geology
- 11 Physical/Tectonic Geology
- 12 A fuel-producing fungus discovered
- 13 Pictures on top of Article
- 14 File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif Nominated for Deletion
- 15 Flora
- 16 Climate section
- 17 More characteristic photos ??
Another Chile vs Argentina fight?
I wont sign in for personal reasons, but, come on... keep it to facts, keep out the "my country is so much better, thus Patagonia MUST belong to ours." bias already.
Besides, good faith in no way means "my granny told me so", last but not least, when someone states something correct, finding a dust old encyclopedia and changing it with the "proof" something from the 1700`s may mention, is not even nationalism its just plain old vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a much better source than "from an old encyclopedia". Otherwise, the copyright status isn't certain.
- It's from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I think at one point people had the idea that they couldn't mention it by name, and almost all references to an "old encyclopedia" mean that one. Easy to check, just go to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ and compare the wording. Stan 16:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Okie dok. Thanks for looking it up, and for the tip. -- Ilya 16:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
History and belongings keeps changing, the "old encyclopedia" crap belongs into history if nothing else, we need to know what is going on there right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
La Pampa's membership in the interprovincial grouping "Patagonia"
Apparently, there is also a semi-formal lobbying group of southern Argentine provinces called Patagonia, which includes the province of La Pampa, even though it is not Patagonian in the natural or [probably] cultural sense (possibly a corner of its panhandle extends into that region, I don't know). Should the article mention this also? --Big Adamsky 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The including of La Pampa province in the patagonian region is something that I've started to see one or two years ago. Geographically, there is not many coincidences between Chubut or Rio Negro with La Pampa. Perhaps their southern part seems more "patagonian", but I think this new inclussion is just only for comercial reasons. Being a part of the Patagonia atracts more tourism. The Colorado River always were taken as limit of Patagonia in the argentinian part. The people who worked in this article about Patagonia have made a very good job. Greetings!!
--188.8.131.52 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson
- I have seen La Pampa province included in contexts that deal with statistics, economy and local/regional domestic politics. //Big Adamsky 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The northern border (zone)
Where does Chilean Patagonia begin? I have seen Los Lagos mentioned as its northern border zone. I also recall seeing the Bío-Bío and Río Negro as forming historical borders to the Patagonian frontier region. //Big Adamsky 16:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see usually two definitions of Chilean patagonia. In Chile "Chilean Patagonia" refer to Magallanes Region + Aysen Region + Palena Province (all Chile south of Chacao Channel with the excaeption of Chiloe Island). In the context of tourism, many times all Chile south of Bio-Bio River is considered part of Patagonia. Dentren | Talk 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Might as well show the uncertain northern limit in the article itself. The area south of the Bio-Bio traditionally was regarded as Araucania, not Patagonia, with the Spaniards holding Valdivia and Chiloe and the Mapuches holding the rest; no reason why that has to be the case now, but people in Punta Arenas were quite incensed when the then-mayor of Puerto Montt, Rabindranath Quinteros Lara, began to call his city the capital of Patagonia a few years ago.Isidorpax (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Argentinian Limits: the oficial version when I studied was that the northern limit of Patagonia is the Colorado river (not the Negro, as stated here above). There is a whole (long) page about this in the Spanish wiki: Patagonian Limits (in Spanish). Both the Chilean and Argentinian limits are discussed. Unfortunately there is not Spanish version of the this page, and most of its references are also in Spanish. I could translate some of it if needed. Additionally, my first impression/critic of this page was that the article should begin with a current political/orographical map of southern SA and a latitude/longitud description of the Patagonia's limits, as it's done in many other wiki pages. I could not understand the value of using an old Spanish map to present the region. It is only relevant for a talk about patagonian history. And then I discovered that this page is linked and links into the corresponding Spanish version https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia. Which is much more complete and extensive, and begins very clearly showing the present map of the territory. All questions about limits and many more are answer there. Why not just use the same map and translate some more of that page? --Bluelilis (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I was just going to make the same recommendation. We need a map. I can't find any definitive map on the net. Is it the entire area Pacific to Atlantic? and where is the northern border? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talk • contribs) 02:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If you study Thomas Falkner, Carlos Morla Vicuña both historians and geographers experts in Patagonia, they describe the limits of the northern Patagonia clearly at Lat. 38ºS in Argentina and 39º40´S in Chile, That is, Rio Negro in Argentina and Rio Calle Calle in Chile. At the time, rivers were the best limits or landmarks available. Be aware that Rio Negro in Argentina follows a northern curve , so, the middle of the territory in Argentina is closer to Latitude 38ºS and the river follows South East towards Carmen de Patagones into the Atlantic Ocean and at the Andes there are two "desaguaderos" from the lakes and rivers which follow the river Calle Calle in Valdivia down into the Pacific Ocean. In Patagonia it is usually described the virgin forest as "bosque Valdiviano", which is the wild forest original to Valdivia and found in many spots in the Chilean and Argentinean Northern Patagonia. So as to the description of Latitudes, the Tehuelches (Patagons) and the rivers main line of divisions used at the time, it is correct to assume that Northern Patagonia in Chile begins at Rio Calle Calle in Valdivia and in Argentina the river Rio Negro at Nahuel Huapi ( Tiger Island ) and Neuquen . Although many maps of Argentina and writings describe the territory of Patagonia in Chile as if it starts at Aysen excluding Chiloe Island, that is a misleading theory. Visit Monte Verde Archaeological Site in Puerto Montt that dates 14.500 BP. The Tehuelches tribes were Nomads and would come and go from the Cordillera to the sea, depending the season and following the rivers and water creeks down to the ocean. Do you believe that the Tehuelches would travel from Rio Negro ( Argentina) to Aysen (Chile) in order to reach the sea ( a distance of 500 kms by foot? ) I do not think that is possible, when they were 100 Kms from the Cordillera valleys to the sea, through valleys well acquainted to travel by foot, also they would not have missed seno de Reloncavi, interior ocean close to Puerto Montt. See the map we have included from Patagonia Media. Unfortunately there is not one New Map that can show the Patagonia territory, as Patagons left no trace or writings and explorers had very limited technology at the time, but, we found a map from 1843 based on the limits well defined by geographers and Historians, published by Thomas Falkner in "History of Patagonia", we have published this Map in our History book of Chilean Patagonia and uploaded it to this site, with all Copyrights attached. Jaime Said - Editor - Patagonia Media--Jaimesaid (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is nonsensical. Are you saying that the boundaries of Patagonia are to be defined by a XIXth century map? Or maybe from the territories supposedly roamed by Tehuelches? (not now, of course, but 15k years ago, when it would be impossible to talk about tehuelches properly)??? Oh, come on. Please, bring on reliable sources and serious data to contrast. --IANVS (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
To insult a historian is free, to say that these statements are not backed up by reliable sources that is a very big mistake. The limits of Patagonia and the ones of Chile and Argentina have been very well documented by Carlos Morla Vicuña and Perito Moreno, in 1880. Frederic Lacroix in his "History of Patagonia " in 1841 defines all the limits, also Raul Rey Balmaceda in "Geografia Historica de la Patagonia " in 1976 confirms the limit of Northern Patagonia which are stated by me (ISBN 978-956-310-774-6 Patagonia Chilena). The same is true to the historian Enrique Campos Menendez in his work " El alma de la Patagonia" based on a careful study done at the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, he states clearly the limits in year 2002. Also from a point of view of its Flora and Fauna, look at Hans Steffen. So, you have many different ways to reliably understand the same argument, both political, geographical, nature, human and cultural. To try to change the history and geographical references in year 2010 its a joke. If you are stating the above with good reference, I will be happy to continue with this matter, otherwise it will be considered an offence made without any support and a waste of your time and mine.--Jaimesaid (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Historians equals history, which may and will in this case belong to the past, things change, so finding some terribly obscure historian which in 1507 said something about the lines "you`re base belongs to us", (quote used in attempt to keep this as neutral as possible) may have been right there, but has most probably changed big time, as above "considered an offence" let me ask: By whom? Wikipedia standards? Seems like another classic example of "my opinion means most of all" please, and for the sake of nitpicking, it offense, with an s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see no mention of the Afrikaners? After the Boer War, the Afrikaner had an option to remain in South Africa by signing allegiance to the British crown or being deported free of charge to any country of their choice. 300 families chose to go to South America and settled in Argentina in an area known as Patagonia, a harsh inhospitable region. They have now expanded to well over 4,000 descendants and the Argentinian State Institute of Agriculture have praised the Boer farming efficiency and they have become the most prosperous farmers of the region. All are bi-lingual in Afrikaans and Spanish. They have their own newspaper, chaurch and schools - but Spanish is slowly replacing Afrikaans in these institutions. The more educated also speak English as their third language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampers (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You know... Columbus got his ass over there at one or another point, its still not part of Spain, lets keep it on the level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wales and Patagonia
I don't know much about this, but I am aware that there is a small, but strong Patagonian community who speak Welsh,, and ergo obviously there is a strong Welsh-Patagonian link. Anyone know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishystick (talk • contribs)
The Patagonne giants, while not 9-10 footers, probably were a tribe of Teheleuche Indians who were more populas during magellan's days, and by the time of Cook they may have been substantially reduced by disease and warfare. That the tallest of them was 6ft6 (by James Cook's time) seems to suggest their population was much decreased, and there were fewer tall men than when Megallon and Pigafetti first encountered.
There were still some tribes in Brazil, as late as the 1960's, whose average stature was nearly 6 1/2 ft in stature (The Kran hacore? Indians of Mato Graso), and some seven foot tall men have been documented. I feel that a Seven foot Indian could easily translate to 9 feet if the spaniards themselves only averaged 5'4, and they would have indeed only reached the underchest of a 7 ft man.
Did they simply not appear bigger because of all the clothes (animal skins whatever) they kept around their feet which simply started the rumors about them being giants because of the enormous imprints they made when they moved around? I mean not even cavemen where as big as the rumors regarding Patagonian people. Besides the colonists could have seen a fairy tall man, and their imagination and following stories could gradually have made these "giants" seem larger and larger. I suggest we keep it clear as to see what is rumors/stories etc, and what the true facts are, there must be ways to clarify this, we can tell the age of dinosaurs by looking at their bones, there is sure to have been found gigantic skeletons over there if they truly where as big
It was reported by Reuters today that a lake in the Magellanes region of Patagonia simply disappeared. I'm not familiar with editing and don't want to mess anything up, but I wanted to point this out and provide a link to anyone interested.
HRPuffinStuff 00:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, neither was the lake Large (as the text suggest) nor important; it didn't even have a name. It doesn't sound like a very important thing.
Simply disappearing wont work, we need a better reason than that, and if no one has it, we should simply leave it as it is.
"With the remains of Grypotherium have been found those of the horse (Onoshippidium), which are known only from the lower pampas mud, and of the Arciotherium, which is found, although not in abundance, in even the most modern Pleistocene deposits in the pampas of Buenos Aires. It would not be surprising if this latter animal were still in existence, for footprints, which may be attributed to it, have been observed on the borders of the rivers Tamangoand Pista, affluents of the Las Hefas, which run through the eastern foot-hills of the Cordillera in 47°S."
What is the source for the idea that Arciotherium might still be alive? Is that a misspelling for Arsinotherium? The only references to "Arciotherium" appear to be copied from Wikipedia. Arsinotherium was the size of a rhinoceros, and native to Africa, so could it really go undetected to this day? And is Tamangoand Pista supposed to be Tamango and Pista? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)NotWalter
The Geology section has some incredible run-on sentences. They need to be broken down into separate sentences for better readability. I have an engineering degree and I write software user manuals and I still couldn't follow them, they were so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusexaethera (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't comment much on the paleontological aspects of the article, but the physical/tectonic information provided here seems HOPELESSLY out of date at best. My best guess is that much of this is based on turn of the century material. I started to edit some of this information but I think a complete rewrite is in order.
(update)A bit of research confirmed my suspicions... much of this has been copied piecemeal but verbatim from an 1899 article by Perito Moreno. No a bad source for information on the state of thinking for 1900, but not really what a Wikipedia article should be based on. A lot has happened in geological information, thinking, and interpretation in the last 110 years. If you are curious about the original source, here it is:
I strongly agree. Someone really needs to re-write this section ... PLEASE!
Wikipedia should stoop to recycling obscure 18th century, first-pass reconnaissance descriptions, for such an important and large area of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
What's a "slike" plain? It doesn't turn up as a recognized English word or geographical term. It is a common typo, but in this case, I can't tell what the right word would be. Dsfwiw (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a typo, but what does it mean? Why hasn't someone corrected it? It doesn't make sense as is. Ed8r (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Edit: I found the answer. Someone was using wording from Britannica (and others) that uses the term "steppelike," i.e., s...like. I corrected the text. Ed8r (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A fuel-producing fungus discovered
A researcher at Montana State University has discovered a fungus in Patagonia which produces diesel fuel!
Probably little reason to mention it here, if we kept listing up what stuff have been found in what country, the list would probably never end, its interesting and relevant, in fact so relevant on its own, that it should be listed on this fungus`s page rather than here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Pictures on top of Article
The first two pictures in the article, belong to one country.
I suggest adding one picture of Argentina and one of the "other" country. Two continued pictures in a row of the same country in the top of the article, is not the best option we can have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think these "rows of pictures" should be removed, they are cutting the text and giving it less continuity. Dentren | Talk 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.|
More characteristic photos ??
The article says Argentine P's "covered with an enormous bed of shingle almost bare of vegetation." If so, I'd like to see that in one or two of the photos ... if shingle's really that characteristic of the region -- because the photos now look more like Switzerland. Twang (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article has a huge bias towards tourism (reflected in choise of picture) and towards nationalism causing a much of the article be unnesesarily divided between Chilean and Argentine Patagonia while from a natural perspective such division does no make much sence. Dentren | Talk 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- ISBN 978-956-310-774-6 Patagonia Chilena