Talk:Santiago

Poor Grammar and Spelling/British or American English?

Can someone please go through the entire article and correct the appalling grammar and spelling errors? It seems as though single paragraphs have been checked, but the article as a whole is atrocious. The culture section of the article, ironically, is the most poorly written section. On another note, the article does not use a standard variety of English, jumping from American to British English--even within sentences! While I have a preference for American English grammar, spelling and construction, I believe it is up to the community to decide what variety should be preferred. As Chile does not have a tendency to favor either variety, we might be in for a pickle. Yet, it is important that the article is written in a uniform variety, consistent with Wikipedia's standards.| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.3.94 (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it to the WikiProject Chile's to-do list, since I've got too many things on my own right now. I've heard some templates like {{convert}} enforce British English with kilometres and the like. Being American, I would prefer to Americanize it, but it does not matter really as long as it's consistent. - Ruodyssey (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Geography section is in especially bad shape, too. It appears in places to have been translated from the Spanish by Google or Babelfish. (And maybe it was. Similarities abound with the Spanish Wikipedia article.) I took a stab at cleaning things up but found myself a bit over my head. It's hard to fix grammar and syntax when you have no idea what the intended meaning is. Someone with a working knowledge of the local geography and a moderate proficiency in English really ought to take a look at it. I do see the occasional discrepancy between British and American English, and we should address those, but they're sort of the tip of the iceberg when there are sentences that make absolutely no sense. Rivertorch (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

tourists whom traveled there have associated Santiago as a "Little Europe of the Southern Hemisphere" a title shared with Buenos Aires in nearby Argentina. Every known nationality lives in the city and still it is the hub of a singular homogeneous Chilean national identity (see Culture of Chile).

The removed entry I have copied and pasted here contains some POV. The statement on being multicultural and homogeneous is confusing, since Chileans are notably patriotic and do not flaunt "foreign origin" of their families' ancestry as much like North Americans. The part about having an European enclave mentality is POV and this can be disparaging to many Chileans, due to their mestizo heritage.

Santiago itself is home to some thousands of Chinese, Koreans, more numerous Arab nationalities (notably the Palestinian community is said to exceed nearly all large cities of the West Bank or Gaza), and other ethnic groups. They tend to settle first in Barrio Patronato, the Central district akin to the Lower East Side of New York. It used to be the heart of the Chilean Jewish community.

I sense one traveling in the Southern Hemisphere can find more "European" roots in Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand and to some extent South Africa and Brazil, which has tens of millions of "white" European descendants. Santiago is indeed modern, but its much like every Latin American metropolis, even when the economic boom - el Milagro Chileno in the 1980s-1990s and 2000s - had transformed Chile greatly in culture or society, and national politics. Mike D 26 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Though you have a valid point in that Santiago may be overstated by being called a "little Europe," it was and is, nontheless, no stranger to heavy European immigration. A good read is Latin American historian Russel, who was tracked European immigration and development in Santiago. The majority of German-Chileans (biggest immigrant group), Croatian-Chileans, British-Chileans, Spanish-Chileans and other European-Chileans and their descendants live in Santiago; this may be less noticeable than in other cities such as Puerto Montt due to the melting pot nature of Santiago. Another good read is Wikipedia's "Immigration to Chile" article. Please avoid any judgment solely based on personal experience. Remember that Wikipedia references secondary sources (which support the heavy European influence in Santiago claim). --190.45.160.177 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Christ, you're right. I'll get on it. As a mater of fact, I've already fixed like 4-5 mistakes, and I'm not even done with the first paragraph! --MindZiper (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't even understand some of what it says. So if someone could help along... that'd be great. --MindZiper (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

This message is intended for safe-keeping of assessment comments previously made on subpages, specifically Talk:Santiago, Chile/Comments. A discussion in October 2009 concluded with the consensus for discontinuation, and subsequently, the small number of WikiProject Chile articles with comments have had their comments moved to the the talk page. Below is the sole entry from that subpage. - Ruodyssey (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Rated Start Plenty of photographs and a lot of written text. Infobox and skyline picture included.

1. Cite sources for facts stated. At this time, the article is unreferenced. WP:CITET WP:FOOT Alan.ca 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Plaza italia.GIF Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plaza italia.GIF, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image for this article before it is deleted.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Plaza_italia.GIF Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plaza_italia.GIF, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. 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. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Government-backed censorship of article

A few months ago, this article was sanitized by a somebody who apparently worked for the city of Santiago. This user, User:Robims (who also edited under account User:Robimz) attempted to scrub the article of sections that discussed the less sunny aspects of the city. A likely scenario is that this person works for a department that worries about tourism but it's impossible to know the exact motivation for their edits. The sections were not re-added largely because it was felt they were not well-enough cited.

A couple points to make. 1) Fight government censorship of Wikipedia to its fullest! When it's evident that an account has a biased agenda, as it was in this case, it makes sense to resist their edits. If an official is trying to remove material, try to find sources to prevent its removal. In this case, the material being removed was and is very easy to find references that support it. I would go so far as to say that some of the details removed are among the most prominent things noticed by a new foreign visitor to the city. 2) The usual rules at Wikipedia can be gamed. I don't think the rules were consciously gamed in this case, but effectively that was the result. Since the removed material was not re-added largely because it lacked citations, this left the article mostly only discussing neutral or positive aspects of the city. A Wikipedia article for a city is not a tourism brochure. The article ought to give a real flavor of the city, both positive and negative. In summary, yielding to the government censorship ended up biasing the article even though this was technically "by the rules". In a sense, the censor "won".

The failure here, as I see it, was not taking an aggressive stance against government censorship. The only way to fight government-backed vandalism is to push back. If the propagandist wants to remove information that is likely true, fight it by finding the citations for unsourced material. If censors see that the stove gets hotter every time they touch it, they will eventually stop trying to touch it. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Robimz's edits: I did only a partial revert because of lack of sourcing and, as stated in my edit summary, because some of the content didn't appear to be specific to Santiago. (Rich and poor sections, homeless people, and scam artists—oh my! Sounds like thousands of other cities.) In looking over this content again, I see that what I didn't restore to the article consisted primarily of original research, and not even well written original research at that.

You're quite correct that articles shouldn't be tourism brochures, but the way to fix a lopsided article is to add cogent, reliably sourced content to provide balance.

As for Robims/Robimz, while some of their edits were deeply problematic, they were warned for those edits, and they have a grand total of seven contributions between them, none of them very recent. SPI seems like a bit of an overreaction, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Montaje de santiago (2).png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Montaje de santiago (2).png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PEDRO DE VALDIVIA The founder of Santiago, Pedro de Valdivia, was SPANISH and born in SPAIN, not in Italy. The fact that he led military operations in Italy and other places doesn´t mean he was Italian, or we would say that McArthur was Japanese because he led military operations in Japan?--83.57.225.197 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)