Talk:Ushuaia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ushuaia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Argentina High‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Ushuaia, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport: Maritime Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Southern

Ushuaia is not the Southernmost city in the world, that dubious honor belongs to Puerto Williams, which is southeast of Ushuaia across the Beagle Channel.

However, for tourism purposes, Ushuaia bills itself as the southermost city on Earth, and it is thus that many people actually believe it to be so.

The way I've heard it is that Ushuaia gets to be southernmost "city", while Puerto Williams, being smaller, is southernmost "town". But as we know from town and city, the dividing line is not precise, and would technically depend on Argentina's and Chile's official definitions of the terms - for instance, in some states of the US, even very small places can call themselves "cities" if they've been incorporated with the right paperwork. (This is worth a paragraph of explanation in the article, btw.) Stan 13:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Spanish word for town? SqueakBox 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "pueblo" ? not sure though since my spanish is primitive Chuckarg33 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Huskermax5 (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC) PW and Ushusia both have comercial airports though but Ushuaia is the big city and PW is south of it. Is PW a city? No is it a town most certainly?[reply]

Southernmost PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT: Puerto Toro, Chile, about 120 km south of Puerto Williams, Chile. That deserves the title. --NicAgent 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have permanent establishments in the Antarctica. Puerto Williams has less than 2,000 inhabitants, hardly a city. Anyhow, the article says sometimes considered, which is true. Mariano(t/c) 09:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southernmost PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Can we get over the Guinness Book bragging rights now? Kthxbye. --76.209.58.121 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ushuaia is certainly the world's southernmost city, since its population is north of 50,000. I think we have to accept Argentine usage in this case: Ushuaia has a city government and is also the provincial capital. Puerto Williams by contrast is scarcely even a town, more of a village (2400 people), and all other more southerly contenders are reckoned in the dozens of people. I say leave the usage. Erik 18:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC

As long as this is referenced (and in Spanish is fine) we can say this, SqueakBox 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to the differentiation between Ushuaia and Puerto Williams, since Ushuaia has organized transportation, independent hospital and institutions of higher learning. All these fit the classification of City, as wikipedia states in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City, that a City is "an urban settlement with a particularly important status which differentiates it from a town."

Puerto Williams should be considered the southernmost town, although it is mainly made up of Naval personnel, and Ushuaia should be considered the southernmost City.

Fair enough. I guess I should've read all the posts before jumping in.

Since, Chile considers to be a city (see this)) any urban entity with over 5,000 people, Puerto Williams would not be a city.

But Charlry, can you please tells us what Argentina considers to be a city?

The article by El clarin is puzzling because it does cite a bi-national comittee.

Likeminas (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a definition for 'city' from argentina. Maybe the text can be rephrased to express this since the Clarin article does speak of loosing the title, or to add that the southernmost settlement is puerto williams? doesn't matter to me Chuckarg33 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

I have no beef on either side of this content dispute, it seems a reliable cite to me. As there is a dispute I've added a comment on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Justin talk 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ushuaia ya no será la ciudad más austral del mundo

What is a city or a town or a hamlet should not be defined in Wikipedia. Let another decide about it. And they dit it: See Ushuaia ya no será la ciudad más austral del mundo. Chileans and Argentines decided that Puerto Williams IS the southernmost city of the world:

Ushuaia claims to be the "Southernmost city in the world." ... is false
The main reasons that Ushuaia can claim ... is non-sense,
Puerto Williams has very little productive activities and most of its population are military ... is a NOT Neutral point of view (and this is an article about Ushuaia not PW)

--Keysanger (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper article is incorrect. Please see http://www.diputados.gov.ar/dependencias/dcomisiones/periodo-116/116-1243.html and http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=101904

The Argentine Congress said that the transfer of the slogan isn't mentioned in the official records of the Committee meeting and that it wasn't even in the topics to be discussed. It's unfortunate that this false information was published in an Argentine newspaper. In any case, this is only related to the slogan of "southernmost city" and not to the geographical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.236.99 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat debatable, as we should clearly define what constitutes a city. If we were to consider it in terms of population, Punta Arenas with 120,000 people is by far the largest city in the entire Patagonian Region, after the more northerly Argentine cities of Neuquén and Comodoro Rivadavia. Likeminas (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the Clarin newspaper article that I went to was indeed refuted by the lower house of the Arg congress. Then the reference settling this argument should only be the Chilean governments definition of a city, or cuidad, as been a centre of population with more than 5000 inhabitants, as I first referenced here in Jan 09. But then again that reference is a wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City#Chile) which claims that Chile defines a city as more than 5000, but there is no reference to back this up, only a statement that Chile does so. We should find a government publication which actually backs this up because if Chile defines a city as one having more than ,say 1000, then the Ushuaia article is incorrect, if it is actually more than 5000 population then this Ushuaia article is correct. Chuckarg33 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not entirely accept your argument. Remember that "city" is an English word and "cuidad" is Spanish. Argentina and Chile are Spanish-speaking countries. They can squabble about the slogan as much as they like, and they can even agree amongst themselves which is entitled to use the slogan "southernmost city", but this does not make it a fact for an English-language encyclopedia. I think you would be hard pressed to find any English-language speaker who would consider a settlement of 2000 people to constitute a city. A village, yes. A town, maybe. A city, no. Ushuaia's population of 60,000 plus and its status as a regional capital give it much more credibility as a city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Lighthouse at the End of the World

From the article: "Some tours also visit the Lighthouse at the End of the World, made famous by Jules Verne in the novel of the same name." -- I've been to Ushuaia and I visited this lighthouse, I'm just wandering if this lighthouse really is the one Jules Verne was referring to. If it is so (if it is confirmed, with sources, the complete package), maybe a link to the Lighthouse at the End of the World should be provided in this paragraph, and at the novel's article a link pointing to this article as a reference to the lighthouse Jules Verne was writing about in the novel. Anyone knows if this is confirmed? --A/B 'Shipper 女 ^(talk) 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this belongs in the article, but if we want to include references to culture, it's worth mentioning that the film Happy Together features the lighthouse at Ushuaia rather prominently.

According to the article The Lighthouse at the End of the World he was inspired by a lighthouse in Isla de los Estados. If its true this lighthouse are not the same as the lighthouse of Ushuaia that is promoted as the lighthouse of the end of the world. Dentren | ^Talk 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

Thanks to those who helped sort this one out, I have tried sorting the mess of the talk pages left behind, while the histories are a bit confused at least the talk pages are now coherent, SqueakBox 13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

font

"64 000 inhabitants" Font?

Seawolves?!?

The article says "local birds, penguins and seawolves on the islands in the Beagle Channel." I'm guessing "seawolves" is a reference to Orca, not to Seawolf (fish). I've changed the article to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SethML (talk • contribs) 05:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Seawolves is probably a direct translation of the Spanish Lobo marino, the South American Sea Lion. I will fix it. Dentren | ^Talk 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Williams, Chile

Will the anonymous editor please correct PW? It's in Chile! I don't want to revert all your edits, but I will unless this is fixed. Look at an atlas. Archernewland 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge pic removed

I removed the following pic because it was embedded, a 4MB size is not reasonable, please help by making a thumb or link to the proper picture.

ushu9.jpg

Callmeback (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what, who, where

Hi 201.255.236.99,

you insist to write "it is".

In my opinion and the opinion of the "comite de frontera" "it is not"

We should explain to the reader what is going on with the name: what, who, where, etc. It is a very controversial statement to say "it is". Of course the "comite de Frontera" don't think so and the resolution of a chamber of deputies is very nebulous. And it is the resolution of a comitee of the chamber, not the chamber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysanger (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper article is incorrect. I provided two different sources that refute the Clarín article. I think you should include a direct reference to the mentioned "Comité de Frontera" resolution. Also, as I said before, this doesn't change the fact that Ushuaia is the southernmost city. http://www.diputados.gov.ar/dependencias/dcomisiones/periodo-116/116-1243.html http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=101904 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.236.99 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and logical but only to an degree since Puerto Williams is still there in isla navarino and still has some 2000 people some of who are military personnel and others who are permanent working as fishermen and in sheep farms. Chuckarg33 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name Ushuaia

All the references plus the text in the section "History of settlement" point towards the first Europeans in the area to be British missionaries who were engaged in a religious mission to take Christianity to the local long term inhabitants, Yaman or Selk’nam peoples. So it is not really correct to call these missionaries 'colonists' since their long term objectives were not really consistent with a colonial presence and they left the area once most of the Selknam people died off, mainly due to European diseases Chuckarg33 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native peoples of Ushuaia

There seems to be some contradiction in the references used as to what the people of Ushuaia were actually called or named. In tierra del fuego the Ona is the accepted name for the native population but then some authors use Selk’nam for those around Ushuaia while others authors use Yámana. Shouldn't the article use only one name for those inhabitants of Ushuaia pre-European arrivals? Chuckarg33 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selknam/Ona and Yamana/Yaghan are different nomadic people, the Selknam lived in the inland of Tierra del Fuego by hunting guanacos and tha Yaghans lived in the area of the Beagle Channel.. Maybe there where "sightings" of both groups in Ushuaia, but I think the selknams have little reasons to visit the woody, wet and montanious area of Ushuaia so the first inhabitants must surely by Yaghans.Dentren | ^Talk 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I've gone through and changed it to be the Yaghans and not Selknam, but we would need a correct reference for this. Chuckarg33 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pt Roca's intentions

RE sentence in History section: "That same year, the Argentine President Julio Argentino Roca sought to increase the Argentine presence by promoting establishment of a penal colony for re-offenders, modeled after Tasmania, Australia."

When I first wrote that History section I added in a motive for Pt Roca's establishing of a penal colony but now that I've done more edits I realize that it was a POV push which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Therefore I edited out the previous sentence, but editors changed it back. I think that if it is to stay that then we need a reference to back it up so as to avoid own POV. All the reference says is:"DECRETO DE JULIO A. ROCA FIJANDO EN TIERRA DEL FUEGO LA CÁRCEL DE REINCIDENTES. La Sub-prefectura de Bahía Thetis vuelve a Ushuaia." ie by google: "ACT OF JULY A. ROCA AFFIRMING IN TIERRA DEL FUEGO prison recidivism. The Sub-prefecture Thetis Bay back to Ushuaia." but I'm sure that a "decreto" is an "executive order" by a president. The reference www.tierradelfuego.org.ar/historia/ushuaia does mention that the penal colony was modeled after Tasmania but not what the intentions of President Roca were, beyond sending the worst criminals to Ushuaia Chuckarg33 (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

It depends on what you define as a city. Does it have to have a certain population? Does it have to be a major centre? etc, etc. For example, if you define a city as having a population over 1 million, then the title of the world's southern most city belongs to Melbourne, Australia.--Just James 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Auckland has 1.3 million people and is a capital city, last I heard it was south of Melbourne while with over 400,000 Christchurch is clearly a city by any definition. Wikipedia claims Dunedin with 118,000 is also a city and that is really stretching the limit, Ushuaia i=would be called a city in Spanish and a town in English, SqueakBox 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Melbourne is further south than Auckland.--Just James 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless to continue this eternal discussion about the souterhmost city. This article will never be able to state that Ushuaia is the absolute southern most city, it depends on the criteria used. Instead it can be stated that is the southermost city having a population of 64,000. See also: southernmost settlements. Dentren | ^Talk 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess it is meaningless. Oh well, sorry for all the trouble.--Just James 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne is actually further south than Auckland, and Auckland is not the capital city of New Zealand. Wellington is the capital. I think that by the New Zealand definition a city has to have at least 20,000 people so if Ushuaia was in New Zealand it would be a city. Puerto Williams would only be a town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.11.153 (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact Microsoft encarta and the New York Times mentions Ushuaia as the southernmost city does not makes Ushuaia it. The title of the southernmost city is disputed, and the article is not being neutral when stating in the first sentence that Ushuaia is the southernmost city without any futher coment. It would be more correct to say Ushuaia is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world or Ushuaia is known as "the southernmost city in the world". There is no clear and undisputed definition about how big a settlement needs to be to be considered a city. Doing a comparison; the article of Michael Jackson can not state that Michael Jackson is the king of pop, but it can istead state that he is considred among the greatest pop artists of the XX century, or that he is called the king of pop. Dentren | ^Talk 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Do you know of any city that is further south than Ushuaia? Now, if your answer is "the 2000 inhabitants town, Puerto Williams" then what is dubious is your intellectual honesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.228.183 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner into..... Stanley, capital of the Falklands, has about 2000 residents and its a city and capital city at that! So why not Puerto Williams? because as far as we can see Chile considers a 'City' an urban populated area with more than 5000, although the reference for this is Wiki in Spanish so we can't really be certain. Chuckarg33 (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say some country declares one of it bases in Antartica to be a city, would that make it a city? If that gets into wikipedia then one thing is certain: wikipedia will no longer be conveying any meaningful information and we'll be better off consulting Encarta or Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.232.13 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NY times citation is not a reliable source since the material belongs not to the newspaper but to aa travel agency. Travel agencies might have good intentions, but they obviously promote places and encourages tourit to visit places.. Citing encarta is acceptable but a tourist agency not.Dentren | ^Talk 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tag?

Hi all, just saw this posted on the reliable source page as a dispute. Is the nut of this disagreement the claim that it's the southernmost city? I want to be clear about what folks are disagreeing over. Does whoever disagrees with this statement have another source showing that some other city is farther south, and if so can you bring it forward? Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears to be that this is a reliable source and a suitable cite to use on Wikipedia. Again I have no beef in the content dispute but I have to say removing a reliable citation to replace with a dubious tag appears to be disruptive to me. Justin talk 09:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I just read the Frommer's blurb a bit more closely and it does indeed declare it the southernmost city, while in the same breath acknowledging that there's a settlement further south. So I guess the real question is one of semantics, i.e. city vs town? — e. ripley\^talk 13:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article is accurate. You can take a look at Southernmost settlements and you'll see that indeed Ushuaia is in 11th. place, but of course the other 10 (and the bases in Antarctica) are not cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.232.13 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps in letter, but I'm not sure about in spirit. I think we might do our readers a disservice assuming that they would know that there are hairs being split here over what's a city vs. what's a town, by omission. It wouldn't hurt to mention, perhaps parenthetically, that there are settlements further south, but that this is the southernmost settlement of any size. — e. ripley\^talk 15:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: there's never been any argument that there are settlements farther south. There's not much argument that none of those can be reasonably called cities with a straight face. The only real bone of contention is whether the intro paragraph should baldly state "it's the southernmost city" (suppressing the semantic issue entirely), or say something like "it's called the southernmost city" (which the references obviously do support reliably) "although much smaller settlements do exist farther south", and then let the "Southernmost city" section explain the semantic issue. Routinely purging any mention of the issue from the intro paragraph smacks to me of POV. Let the data speak for themselves. Elphion (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit, it was pretty much what I had in mind to do and seems accurate to me. The caveats added should hopefully satisfy the critics. Justin talk 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the southernmost city is currently disputed. The article is missleading readers when presenting Ushuaia in the first sentence that as the southernmost city without any futher comment. It would be more correct to say Ushuaia is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world or Ushuaia is known as "the southernmost city in the world". There is no clear and undisputed definition about how big a settlement needs to be to be considered a city. Doing a comparison; the article of Michael Jackson can not state that Michael Jackson is the king of pop, but it can istead state that he is considred among the greatest pop artists of the XX century, or that he is called the king of pop.Dentren | ^Talk 10:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding "sometimes" is clumsy given that fact that there are settlements further south is touched on in the same sentence, but it's not a big enough deal to worry with. — e. ripley\^talk 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

As I have previously pointed out, I have no vested interest in the debate. I'm neither Argentine nor Chilean. The statement that Ushuaia is the southernmost city is verified by a reliable source. According to wiki policies that statement is acceptable, especially since the edit acknowledges that there are settlements further South. The only objection I can see is personal preference but the arguments put forward to preclude their inclusion are original research and specifically excluded by wiki policies. Unless someone can put forward a proper justfication for a change based upon a reasonable intepretation of policy or some compromise wording that avoids nationalist sensitivities then it should stay. I do suggest that the practise of removing what is acknowledged to be a reliable source to replace it with a dubious tag should stop forthwith - it is simply being disruptive. Justin talk 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems pretty stable right now. I'll keep it on my watchlist. — e. ripley\^talk 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely do not support a version such as what Dentren recently used ("...(althought the title is disputed)"). I prefer something along the lines of what I wrote, and I believe Justin does as well. — e. ripley\^talk 12:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said I support the version that complies with wiki policies. Personal preference ~~and nationalist POV concerns should be put to one side.~~ Justin talk 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I am sure that you are probably tired and frustrated at having to deal with a petty war here, and I mean you no offense, but it may be good to take a breath and remember assume good faith. Let's focus on the content instead of motivations, I don't see how throwing around accusations of nationalism can possibly help here. Given the seemingly contradictory nature of the source we're using, it's not unreasonable to disagree -- to an extent -- on the exact language that should be used. — e. ripley\^talk 12:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've partially redacted my comment. You're right it was partly irritation born out of frustration. I unconditionally withdraw the remark. Justin talk 15:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with "smaller" as opposed to "very small," since in some ways "very" is a value judgment (although, frankly, I think it's a value judgment most reasonable people would share about towns with pop. 2000 or less). However, it's acceptable enough to me not to edit war over. — e. ripley\^talk 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions like very small are as you said value judgment, its beter to present more solid facts so that the reader have a chace to makes his own idea about the topic. However Im am still not satiasfied with the lead/entrance to the article. The section Southernmost city is quite balanced and good but the lead/entrance is still to categoric.

My grammar in English is not the best but I dont see this sentence to be coherent and the southernmost city in the world (Some smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size). Specially this part but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size what is Ushuaia the southernmost of any size? The southernmost city of any size? Then say it. But to state once again that Ushuaia "is" the southermost city of any size would be redundant.Dentren | ^Talk 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is perfectly grammatical as it stands and doesn't need to mention "city," particularly since this invites other potentially unanswerable questions about what constitutes a city vs a town. I would not support adding "city" to that phrase. The assumed subject in the second clause is "settlement," which is used in the first clause. — e. ripley\^talk 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OUTDENT

E. Ripley is quite correct. The sentence is not in the least ambiguous; it states that there are settlements farther south, but that Ushuaia is the southernmost [settlement] of any [significant] size. This is how anyone fluent in English would read it. Also, regarding this edit I would prefer that you not edit *my* remarks. Elphion (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious (continuation)

I have put once again the dubious tag in the article text because of the following:

1) The user justin claims that there "consensus" about that encarta is a reliable source. Encarta is for the first not a primary source and since they do not publish their sources there is way to see the arguments and logic behind. As most ushuaians, Argentines and Chileans. There are serious objections on encartas content regarding nationalistic issues (claims) like in the case of Ushuaua being the southernmost city.^[1] Encarta for differences in factual content between national versions of Encarta, accusing Microsoft of "pandering to local prejudices" instead of presenting subjects objectively.^[2] So encartar is still a source but it has limited authority.

2) The dispute of being the southernmost city is a comercial one, primarily between Puerto Williams and Ushuaia. People reading the article should know about this issue as soon as the southernmost claims appear in the article. Is anybody against this point?

3) Again, the article is missleading readers when presenting Ushuaia in the first sentence that as the southernmost city. It should instead mention that Ushuaia is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world or Ushuaia is known as "the southernmost city in the world", followed by a comment in the style of however, the title of "southernmost city" is disputed... This is how the article should begin.

4) For the people that does not believe that Puerto Williams is considered the southernmost city by 'some I have some some sources mentioning it as the southernmost city. Note that Im am not saying that these sources are more or less valid that Ushuaias ones but they clearly show that there is different views on which is the southernmost city and that Ushuaua can not universally claim to be the southernmost city.^[3]^[4] Also, here I have link that from the official homepage of the municipality of Puerto Williams where PW is mentioned as a the city.[1]

At last I wuold like the dubuous tag to be keeped until this issue is solved. I have not made any changes in the leading apart from the dubious tag because do not want to start an edit war, so please respect the tag. Dubious tags are too been used so please dont say they are disruptive.Dentren | ^Talk 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "is often called" is better than "is". I suggested something similar earlier (and I have made this change). I disagree that an extended discussion of this, or specific mention of PW, belongs in the introductory summary; it is adequately discussed in the "Southernmost city" section, where PW is called out specifically and the economic motive at least suggested (though toned down a bit too aggressively recently by User:Chuckarg33). (Update: I have now edited this.) Arguing that Encarta is not a reasonable source (even if you see it as biased -- all sources are biased in some direction) strains credulity. I would also argue that the earlier NYT reference should be restored, since it is perfectly reasonable as evidence that U "is called" the southernmost city. And the dubious tag really is out of place; there is nothing very dubious here, as several editors above have agreed. Can you suggest criteria for removing it? Elphion (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with what you have stated above and your edits. I do still think that this part (Smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size.) need to be reformulated because sentences in parenthesis should be avoided and are specially not desirable in the first sentences. About the dubious tag, it will move it to (Smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size.), because this sentence is problematic because it do state that Ushuaia is. doing an analogy you can not say some people consider the UFO to be aliens (but they are aliens). (sorry for the analogy).

I defend the use of the dubious tag because it is meant to be used after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute (your own or someone else's); for an entire disputed article or section, see Disputed and Disputed-section. It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page. To refer to a specific talk page section, use ^{[dubious – discuss]}; if the dispute does not have a talk page section yet (e.g. because it has been argued in edit summaries), please create one.

It is for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors, e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability. Dentren | ^Talk 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you find dubious. That U is often called the southernmost city? That there are smaller settlements farther south? That none of these have any significant size? That Encarta is reasonable evidence that U is called the southernmost city?

I disagree completely with you about the stylistic appropriateness of the parenthetical statement. It expresses succinctly what the issue is, without getting in the way -- and more importantly, without adding a lot of extra weight to the introduction. And it does not beg the question, as your purported analogy does. Where is it said that parenthesis is inappropriate, anywhere in an article?

The dubious tag is for disagreements of fact. I don't see any here; your objections are all stylistic. The tag also indicates that a discussion is in progress. I want to say this calmly, but clearly: we have already had the discussion; it goes on for several paragraphs above, and you are in a distinctly small minority. I repeat: what should be the criteria for removing the tag? Do you think you alone should prevent us from moving on?

Elphion (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(SNIP -- accidentally duplicated material deleted) Elphion (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in this debate not long, ago so if you guys don’t mind, I will post what I think here.

Puerto Williams with a population of little over 2,000 is not a city as per Chilean standards, but rather a town.
Publications such as the argentine newspaper El Clarin [2] and the Sunday times from England, have reported that Puerto Williams is the southernmost (city?)settlement[3]
I checked Encarta, and while authoritative I would take that source with a grain of salt. The few lines accompanying the picture don’t seem anything like an article but rather like some sort of caption. Moreover, Encarta articles, are usually done in batches. That’s why I would suggest getting another source, or asking input in the noticeboard to see if in fact it can be used.
This line Smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size, seems troubling as it is somewhat ambiguous.

Of any size? Punta Arenas is way bigger than Ushuaia. Would that make it the southernmost city? Puerto Williams is of a size, yet, is south Ushuaia. That line needs to be either removed or written in a non-ambiguous way.

Finally, I don’t think this is clear cut, and as Dentren is suggesting, I think the article should acknowledge (and also to comply with NPOV) that Ushuaia, although, reckoned as the southernmost city by some, is certainly not considered to be so by all.

Likeminas (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it works by consensus. The fact that I may currently be in "minority" does not say anything about what is accurate and what is not (this article is obviously more visited by Argentines than by others). Elphion. you said following about the sentence in parenthesis: E. Ripley is quite correct. The sentence is not in the least ambiguous; it states that there are settlements farther south, but that Ushuaia is the southernmost [settlement] of any [significant] size. even following your own interpretation we found that the sentence is ambigous as you have to introduce [significant] to explain it. An what makes a settlement significan or not? McMurdo Base in antarctica is of significant (if not huge) size for an antarctic base.

The dubios tag should remain until the dispute is solved, I dont think I will take mcuh time. We have at least wait for other editors to give their point of view before we 2 (or 3) decide such thinks. I would be unfair to claim consensus (wich we still not have, althought we have progressed) over a 2 hours discussion where 3 editors have participated, Justin, e. ripley and others have sure also an opinion.Dentren | ^Talk 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren: This is an abstract argument unless you are willing to say which is the other "city" that should be considered. Since that other is a very small town, you are in quite an untenable position.

Also, that you force an argument doesn't necessarily mean that that argument should be brought forward in the first sentence of an article in wikipedia. If it were so simple I could say that there are martians in Puerto Williams, and since you would (hopefully) deny it, we would have an argument and you would be obliged to reproduce it in the article.

Since you deleted the NYT reference I must assume that you are the consensus arbiter, am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody have to make the changes. The current agreement in the debate (between me and Elphion) is that the NYT citiation should be used to claim that ushuaua "is considered" or "called" but it doesnt have the weight to state that ushuaia "is". The proposal is sumarized as following: Ushuaia is often considered the w.. but it can not be taken universally as the worlds southernmost because there is no clear definition of what a city is and because there is a rival claim by PW.

answering issue nr 2. Somebody have to make the changes. Many changes that I have done have been reverted, but other not. Because of this Im having this discussion, to logically explain and discuss changes. Apart from this you are doing a value judgement when saying very small town, let us stay with the sources. There are sources that identifies Pw as a (small) city and cities are not anly cities because of their population but also because of their services and facilities. Dentren | ^Talk 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered? yes. Vandalic? you just made yourself look silly and patently dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resort to personal attacks, can we keep the discussion focused on the article itself and not on the people. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size." Obviously this sentence can't stay. Up to now we only have that wiki entry that says that Chile considered an urban settlement of more that 5000 people as a City or 'Ciudad'. Maybe someone can find a UN classification for a City? Even so, imo, a better way to phrase this is to say that "Ushuaia has long been called the world southernmost City, although today there are small settlements further south which could also be called 'Sourthernmost City'." or words to that effect. imho off course! Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also that introduction seems to be to extensive and too detailed for me. Maybe more of the information that currently is in the intro could go into the main article.

Also note that wikipedia has an article listing the 'Southernmost Settlements' in the world and there is not conflict there and no clash of opinions. Its at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southernmost_settlements Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Microsoft Way", essay by Robert McHenry
^ Si la historia la escribe Microsoft, quiere decir que hay otra historia (in Spanish)
^ Teletrece Internet. "Puerto Williams: la ciudad más austral del mundo sigue creciendo" July 17, 2005.
^ [http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/magallania/v34n1/art01.pdf EL POBLAMIENTO RURAL EN MAGALLANES DURANTE EL SIGLO XX. REALIDAD Y UTOPÍA, Mateo Martinic Magallania, 2006.]

Protection

I was asked - User talk:Davewild#Ushuaia - to have a look at this dispute and as there was some clear edit warring going on, with both parties skirting very close to WP:3RR and being blocked, I have fully protected the article for 3 days (without endorsing any version of the article). This content dispute has clearly been going on for quite a while so all parties, including those who were involved earlier if possible, should attempt to agree what the wording of the intro should be (based on policy such as WP:Neutral Point of View and WP:Verifiability). If consensus has been reached earlier then let me know and I will remove the protection.

On the actual issue itself in my opinion the wording needs to be based on what reliable sources say. Do all sources says Ushuaia is the southernmost city? What do third party (non Argentine or Chilean) reliable sources say? etc. If there is disagreement in the sources then the wording needs to reflect this with appropriate weight to the quantity and quality of the sources. Davewild (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this ground before. The NYT article was referred to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, it was judged to be a reliable source. It is disruptive to remove a reliable reference to add a dubious tag. Especially when there is an established consensus for it to be there and the edit proposed was modified to reflect concerns expressed by Dentren. Hence, it is bitterly disappointing to see the same disruption to the article erupting again. Further, it is gaming the system to run to an admin claiming vandalism when you are the originator of the discussion. They should tattoo this on all wikipedians WP:BRD, you've chosen to edit war to push an edit you already know has an established consensus against it. Personally I think there should have been a block initiated for Dentren's behaviour. And I think the article should be reverted back to before today's edit war i.e. the previous concensus otherwise it is essentially rewarding disruptive behaviour. Justin talk 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection policy is clear that "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons." Therefore I protected the current version when I came to the article not to reward edit warring but to stop it. As to the discussion I'm off for today now but will probably look in again tomorrow. Davewild (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree that it's all Dentren's fault. I think he was engaged in a good faith discussion here, if perhaps a little too doggedly. What sent him to the admins was the snarky Argentine revert in the midst of an otherwise constructive process.

I do believe Dentren is pushing the Chilean POV a bit too assiduously, and he needs to consider (per WP:What is consensus?) that "consensus" does not mean "unanimity". On the other hand, he is concerned that the intro not give the casual reader the impression that there are no other claimants to "southernmost city", a phrase that will inevitably involve some POV. As I explained above, I think that changing "is" to "is often called" (and discussing Puerto Williams in the subsection) is a balanced approach to this objection, and it removes any reasonable objections to the NYT source as a witness.

There remains the issue of the sentence "(Smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size.)", wording due mostly to User:E. Ripley. I find this perfectly idiomatic, and true. "Of any size" may involve a bit of POV, but not much. If there is truly a linguistic stumbling block here, we could change it to something like "(Smaller settlements lie farther south, but none reaching even 3000 inhabitants.)"

I also think it's fair to mention PW's claim on its website (but only in the subsection). I'm disappointed that Dentren removed the bit about Chile not considering it a city, but the reference is admittedly weak.

Elphion (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of policies such as the WP:thewrongversion but removing a WP:RS to add a dubious tag is disruptive and to some could be construed as vandalism; particularly when its been discussed previously. I've seen this before; locking to a version preferred by a disruptivr editor merely emboldens them. I haven't seen a convincing argument to remove that source, rather it seems to be simply WP:OR in pursuit of WP:POV agenda. I have no agenda here, I'm neither Argentine nor Chilean. I'm very disappointed that he chose to simply push this into the article without trying to convince people in talk first and then edit warring to keep it. There are channels to deal with edit warring, appealing to an admin has bypassed the process. If Dentren had remained engaged in the talk page process to achgieve consensus I would have no objection but that isn't what happened is it? Justin talk 23:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I saw happening. Dentren is guilty of holding on too long, but not of gaming the system. He tagged something as dubious, and saw E. Riley untag it unilaterally before Dentren thought the discussion was finished, and (pretty respectfully, I thought) restored the tag. Can we focus please on the article, not on the user? Elphion (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I am focussing on the edit that was done here. He didn't simply tag something as dubious, again removing a reliable source to add a dubious tag is unnecessarily disruptive. If there is an edit war there is the 3RR page, if the page needs protection there is a process for requesting it, running off to an admin to make the request just after making your own edit is gaming the system. Its clearly not a question of holding on too long. A proposed edit was modified in light of his comment, then he comes back a little while later to do exactly the same as previously. Justin talk 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in a discussion about the dubious tag, we should concentrate on the discussion from wich it originated. If we reach a consensus then the tag will be unnesesary. I invite you tio take a look at the article Atacama desert to see how the claim of "being the dryest desert" was put forward in the article. A simmilar solution would be desirable for the Ushuaia article. The text in parenthesis is if not ambiguous hart to understand because it does not say explicit what kind of settlement Ushuaua the southernmost. I the current version sayinfg that ushuaia is called this parenthesis is not nesesary any longer. I propose to remove it. Dentren | ^Talk 11:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are just trying to mask your unlikely position about Puerto Williams. You speak as if there is a huge gray zone where Ushuaia and other cities can be considered the southernmost. The sentence in parentheses clarifies the semantic issue (as Elphion so precisely pinpointed it.) And about the Atacama article, I find it is a convoluted way of saying that... Atacama is the driest desert in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry that isn't the issue at all here. We have a reliable source verifying the edit, it added the caveat that there are other settlements further south that do not qualify as a recognised city. Removing a source to orphan a statement to then tag as dubious is being deliberately obstructive - that is the issue you here. You sole objection falls into the WP:IDONTLIKE category. Justin talk 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the parenthesis sentence to make it more specific as Elphion suggests, will certainly clear out the ambiguousness of saying of any size. The sentence below would be definitely an improvement:

Smaller settlements lie farther south, but none reaching more than 3000 inhabitants. Likeminas (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the previous compromise edit? Justin talk 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ushuaia (pronounced [u'swaia] in Spanish, /u'ʃwaia/ in English) is the capital of the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego and the southernmost city in the world. (Some very small settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size.)[1]

Of any size is ambiguous. That's what's wrong with it.

Likeminas (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive proposal

Changes proposed to the current version
Issue nr	Issue	Proposed change
1	(Smaller settlements lie further south, but Ushuaia is the southernmost of any size.)	remove this sentence or reformulate to Smaller settlements lie farther south, but none reaching more than 3000 inhabitants. (as proposed by linkeminas)
2	"NYT" citation	put it back to back the statement that Ushuaia is considered/called the southernmost city
3	Tourism section	add sentence explaining the importance of being the southernmost city for tourism
4	Vandalism/Edit wars	add this <!--Do not edit the lead of this article regarding ushuaia status as the southernmost city in the world without first discussing it on Talk. Any substantial changes without consensus on Talk may be reverted.--> to the entrance.

Dentren | ^Talk 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) NYT citation needs to be included. b) Ushuaia is the southernmost city, that needs to be stated. What is proposed is weasel words and unneccessary. I have no objection to pointing out that there are other settlments such as Puerto Williams further south. c) No objection to points 3 or 4. I have to say that if you'd come here with this sort of proposal before it would have avoided generating unnecessary heat and light. Justin talk 17:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have done some searching for sources to inform this discussion and found the following sources describing places as southernmost city in the world:-

Punta Arenas

New York Times 1908
CNN 2001
MTV 2008 ("self proclaimed")
BBC 2004
Time Magazine 1936
New York Times 1987 - verified that is Punta Arenas they are talking about by comparing it to his itinerary - here

Ushuaia

Puerto Williams

I could not personally find any source that comes out unambiguously to say Puerto Williams is the southernmost city however an article (I found offline) in The Sunday Times on 21 December 2008 entitled "JOURNEY TO THE END OF THE EARTH" provides a good discussion of the relative merits of both Ushuaia and Puerto Williams (discussing what makes a place a city). There are also quite a few articles that mention Puerto Williams claim but also mentioning Ushuaia at the same time. This Independent article describes Puerto Williams as "a city proud of its "most southerly town in the world" title" which is really confusing for this discussion! I also found a few articles describing Puerto Williams as the most southerly town in the world.

[ Online link for The Sunday Times, 21 Dec 2008 Elphion (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

Discussion

These sources are not exhaustive by any means especially for Ushuaia's claim. I hope these sources are of some use in deciding what the wording should be and could used for verification of claims if needed. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in getting all those reliable references.

As it can be seen from the sources you gathered. It’s not clear cut that Ushuaia is universally considered the southernmost city. Even if the majority of sources say so, a good amount of them do not. Therefore, the article should reflect what the sources say in its variety of definitions and viewpoints, acknowledging that other settlements south (or north) of Ushuaia claim the same title as well.

I should also add that the proposal put forward by Dentren, seems quite reasonable. Hopefully other editors will accept a compromise.

Likeminas (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Common Sense

Punta Arenas Coordinates: 53°10′S 70°56′W Ushuaia Coordinates: 54°48′S 68°18′W

Nice to see some attempt to refer to reliable sources. Simply looking at a map shows that Punta Arenas is North of Ushuaia. Even Chile does not define Puerto Williams as a city - the articles you've mentioned don't make that claim. Can we use a bit of common sense please? Justin talk 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring: Latitude has never been the issue. The problem has always boiled down to what qualifies as a "city". By some definitions Ushuaia doesn't qualify. By some, PW doesn't. Others include one or both. Any definition will involve some POV, and pretending otherwise at this point is disingenuous.

On the point that Chile doesn't classify PW as a city: do we have a bona fide reference for that? The ref (in earlier versions of the article) turns out to point to an unsourced remark in WP itself. Elphion (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't a red herring in the slightest. Both Punta Arenas and Ushuaia would be acknowledged as cities but Ushuaia is clearly further south. The references you turn up don't show PW to be a city, I've tried and can't find a reference that would.

So first of all show me a reference that say that Ushuaia isn't a city please? Justin talk 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ Online link for The Sunday Times, 21 Dec 2008 Elphion (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

(Which mentions that by some definitions, Ushuaia wouldn't count. The point is simply that "city" means different things to different people. This is why Punta Arenas can still argue that it is the southernmost, and PW can argue its own case. I'm not arguing the merits of either position, just pointing out that otherwise reasonable people do make them.) Elphion (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that PW is not considered a city by Chilean standards I would like to have a citation on that to believe it because it could contradict Chilean policies regarding tourism and geopolitics in PW.

What do you think? Do you think Puerto Williams is a city? This is not a rhetorical question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question is of topic but I wll answer it anyway. Yes I do, because I have been there and it has all the infrastructure of a big city but in miniature, hospital, airport, seaport, police station, primary and secndary school, potable water, electricity netwrk tourism office etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not off topic; as I said, unless you answer this question this whole argument is abstract. I'm not sure about the "mini city" argument, but if we keep debating long enough, you'll eventually be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, please. And would you guys please remember to sign your remarks? Thanks. Elphion (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an attack, I should have added a wink: I meant that Puerto Williams will continue to grow and it will become a city.201.255.243.148 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping to conclusions. This can stand as an object lesson to all of us, to show how easily things go off the rails. Elphion (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here there are some links to Chilean media refering to it as the southernmost city.[4] 2005.][5] and scientific articles refering to it as a city [6][7] [8] [9] [10] also in Cabo de Hornos commune (of wich Pw is the capital) homepage PW is refered as a city.[11] I did the following search in google searching only for pages in English.

"southernmost city" Ushuaia gave 21 800 hits
"southernmost city" "Punta Arenas" have 11 400 hits
"southernmost city" "Puerto Williams" gave 1 210 hits

Ushuaia is of course leading but that doent make it the southernmost city. This reflacts that there is clearly diferent views on which is the southernmost city. Wikipedia should have neutral point of view, to reach that the article can not simple state that Ushuaua "is", but can instead state that U. "is called", "sometimes considered" or "often considered". Dentren | ^Talk 09:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless: "southernmost city" ushuaia "punta arenas" 8310 Just look at the first result (spoiler: Ushuaia is southernmost and it is a .cl domain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Meaningless"? Well, it's certainly not a scientific poll :-). But the first one that comes up for *me* (and typical of several) is geographia.com, which says unambiguously that Punta Arenas is the southernmost city in the world. And I am amused: the *2nd* entry is our own Punta Arenas, which takes an approach reminiscent of what has been proposed above: "Located on the Brunswick Peninsula, Punta Arenas is the southernmost city of its size in the world. (Ushuaia, Argentina, also makes this claim and is further south, but has only half the population of Punta Arenas)." (The approach always seems to be to try to knock down the competition!) We can play this game indefinitely; but the fact remains that all sides are going to be able to find a fistful of reputable sources supporting their views. You can explain away the ones supporting PA as ignorant of latitude (Justin's approach), or perhaps just ignorant of Ushuaia at all; but another reasonable explanation is that they don't consider U a city in the same sense. "City" is subjective. To a resident of London, Ushuaia looks pretty provincial. The only way I see out of this is to report what we see: "Ushuaia is often called the southernmost city in the world." -- and explain in the subsection the cases of the various contenders. Elphion (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ephion on that "Ushuaia is often called the southernmost city in the world." would be a good option, perhaps changing the word called to considered, because as we all here can see there are people that do think that Ushuaua is the southernmost city. Commonsense would be to accept that the topic is controversial and discuss that in the section "southernmost city" of the article and to give Ushuaia some credit of being often considered the southernmost city in the world in the first or second sentence. Because it is the claim of being the southernmost city that brings a lot of people to the place. Dentren | ^Talk 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographia.com explicitly contradicts the claim made by Ushuaia, especially the ambiguous and rather useless parenthesis sentence that says of any size.

Likeminas (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Wikipedia can not favour a city with the title "the southernmost city". And there are clearly different views of the issue. We abstain to decide and let the reader the facts and meanings.

I think that the solution given in Puerto Williams should be applied to Ushuaia (20.5.2009):

Puerto Williams is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world, a title that is disputed by Ushuaia located on the oposite northern side of Beagle Channel.

For Ushuaia:

Ushuaia is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world, a title that is disputed by Puerto Williams located on the oposite southern side of Beagle Channel.

Then a passage with some briefly explain follows:

Based on some definitions of what a city is ...

--Keysanger (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is the most NPOV representation I've seen so far. I support it as it doesn't give any undue weight to either claim, and it shows the reader that the title of Southernmost city/settlement is currently disputed.

Likeminas (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: for similar reasons. But remove the unnecessary phrase "that is". Elphion (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To put Ushuaia and Puerto Williams on the same level of consideration is totally misleading. And what about Punta Arenas? It's no longer relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To be frank I don't like this, it seems to be caving in to a POV push and I dislike that intensely. It would be more accurate from a neutral observers POV to point out that it is only disputed to promote tourism in Puerto Williams. Justin talk 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the concept laid out here, but I don't like using the word "dispute" here. We don't really have any sources saying that the cities themselves dispute each other's claims, do we? Beyond that Independent article suggesting the people in PW are proud of the title. But this sort of focus implies that the cities themselves, which by definition would mean their governments, are feuding over it, and we don't actually have any sourcing that says that's the case as far as I can tell. I would suggest, instead, something like... "is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world, a title that is also sometimes attributed to Puerto Williams located...." — e. ripley\^talk 02:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

Ushuaia (pronounced [u'swaia] in Spanish, /u'ʃwaia/ in English) is the capital of the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego and the southernmost city of its size in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3

Ushuaia (pronounced [u'swaia] in Spanish, /u'ʃwaia/ in English) is the capital of the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego and is widely regarded as the southernmost city in the world. Smaller settlements lie farther south, but none reaching more than 3000 inhabitants.

That seems more accurate than the current proposals, which to my mind seem to lend undue weight to arguments in favour of Puerto Williams. Those arguments seem to be based solely on the Chilean authorities reclassifying PW as a city to boost the tourist trade. Wikipedia exists to provide information, its not a booster for the Chilean tourist industry. Justin talk 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ; (Hope its not too late) only because Chile seems to NOT consider PW as large enough to be called a city. Note what Chilean academic says in www.fleming.cl/fleming/archivos/tipologia%20urbana.ppt ;he defines a city as greater than 10,000 ie "Definición: agrupación compacta, censo mínimo de 2.000 hab. Y población activa sector Primario inferior al 25%. Más de 10.000 hab. = CIUDAD" while acknowledging that other countries have other definitions such as US min>2500, Sweeden>200, Spain>10 000 etc; while http://www.bifurcaciones.cl/002/bifurcaciones_002_reserva.pdf uses >2500 to define an urban population and intermediate city ; whilst another Chilean paper defines a City as >5000 residents in www.observatoriourbano.cl/docs/pdf/Ciudades%20Listado%20BÃ¡sico_%20Revisado%20Noviembre%202007.xls; Plus an architect from Chile's Urban Development states that "La ciudad se define como un espacio construido, urbanizado, denso, que aglomera muchas funciones sociales, económicas y urbanas" (http://www.estrategiamaule.cl/?p=59) which simply could not be applied to PW due to the transient nature of military personal who are PW largest residential group.

So while some in Chile may want to start promoting PW with the southernmost city slogan, the general idea one gets from reading Chilean documents is that the urban centre Puerto Williams is too small to be considered a City by Chile, a fact that should be determining here in this 'sourthernmost city' discussion. So this Proposal 3 seems the best option -plus reducing the size of that introduction could also help to make the article more presentable. Puerto Williams could always be described as the "southernmost Town in the World" surely? Chuckarg33 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4

Ushuaia (pronounced [u'swaia] in Spanish, /u'ʃwaia/ in English) is the capital of the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego. It is widely regarded as the southernmost city in the world, though that description is occasionally ~~applied also~~ attributed to Punta Arenas or Puerto Williams in Chile.

(I would like to divide the first sentence, since the notability of Ushuaia in no way depends on being southernmost city. And as 201.255.223.193 points out, Punta Arenas somehow fell out of consideration.) Elphion (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed "applied also" to "attributed", per E. Ripley's better formulation.) Elphion (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I suggest the caveat proposed earlier is added as well - a note warning that the intro should not be changed without reference to talk or it will be immediately reverted. Justin talk 09:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this setences brings justice to both Ushuaia, Punta Arenas and PW. Do also support the introcution of the warning note. Dentren | ^Talk 10:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a minor change. Replace widely for commonly or often. I also support leaving an internal remark. After all reaching consensus has not proven to be easy.

Likeminas (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a debate about which weasel word to qualify the statement with? No offence intended, I just tend to be direct. Justin talk 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as long as it is for the sake of neutrality

Likeminas (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Agree with the change proposed by Likeminas. Does anybody opose it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We'll be using weasel words, but at least saying widely is bolder and backed by references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5

Ushuaia (pronounced [u'swaia] in Spanish, /u'ʃwaia/ in English) is the capital of the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego. It is commonly regarded as the southernmost city in the world, though that description is occasionally attributed to Punta Arenas or Puerto Williams in Chile.Dentren | ^Talk 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't have a particular preference between widely/commonly/often, otherwise I support the sentence. — e. ripley\^talk 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but only the first sentence and without any mention of Puerto Williams or Punta Arenas in the first paragraph. Why do we assume that nobody will read beyond the first paragraph and we must clutter it with a far-fetched claim by Puerto Williams? And I oppose to the warning note. This consensus is nothing near wide. There are 3 or 4 people from Chile (I'm not sure about Elphion [I come from nowhere near either Argentina or Chile, and am pushing no POV. Elphion (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)]), 2 neutral (Justin and Ripley, not sure about the editor) and 1 from Argentina (me). I'm afraid that such a warning could give a false sense of "official" approval and discourage other people from participating in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement we seem (or are close to) to have reached here is the best thing we have now. The note in the entrance is not to perpetuate this agreement but to avoid unilateral changes without discussion before.Dentren | ^Talk 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, why do you oppose mentioning PW or PA in the first paragraph? I'm struggling to understand why it matters to you. Just that it makes it cluttered? — e. ripley\^talk 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Puerto Williams in a such a prominent place gives it an unjustified relevance. There's hardly any source to back the claim. And the reason that Chileans bring Punta Arenas into the discussion is to have a two pronged approach; but they real interest is to promote Puerto Williams. Mentioning Puerto Williams in the first paragraph in an article about Ushuaia validates this subversive intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.223.193 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object, then, to removing the names and instead saying something like... "though that description is occasionally attributed smaller settlements in Chile" Also, can you please, please, please sign your comments? Just type four tildes after your text and it will fill out your signature. — e. ripley\^talk 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Punta Arenas is not smaller so if that is meant to refer to there as well it does not fit. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose to that for the very same reason Davewild is giving. Likeminas (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How about "other" instead of "smaller" then. — e. ripley\^talk 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of them should be mentioned, just like the article about PW does.

The last version (the one most of us agreed upon) seemed good to me.

By the way, let’s not forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus doesn’t have to be unanimous.Likeminas (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't object, even though I think saying widely/commonly is enough, then the interested reader has a whole section to find the details.201.255.223.193 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much for willing to Compromise and assuming good faith, I guess.

Likeminas (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA please. Elphion (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His comment doesn't approach falling afoul of WP:NPA, but it was a little snippy and probably doesn't really help us build a consensus. — e. ripley\^talk 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How pointing out that the Argentinean IP is taking an intransigent stance, and not assuming good faith a personal attack?????

Perhaps, you should read all his conjectures such as they real interest is to promote Puerto Williams. nationalist motives or dislike concealed intentions and then decide the appropriate place for that tag.

Likeminas (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all focus on content rather than motivations, please. This doesn't help us put this to rest. — e. ripley\^talk 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a pretty strong consensus here, the anon's objections notwithstanding. Probably as strong a consensus as you're ever going to see for a (relatively) small article in as large a sea of articles as exist here at WP. — e. ripley\^talk 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The words "commonly" and "occasionally" reflect fairly, and give appropriate weight to, the relative frequencies we're seeing in the sources (world-wide sources, not just from the Chilean travel industry as anon appears to be arguing). Mentioning both PA and PW seems to me far preferable to some deliberately vague locution ("some other cities, er, settlements, um, but one of them is pretty big, located in Chile" :-) -- which would just leave the reader guessing about what's really going on. Elphion (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew, I just knew that when someone decided to try and change the weasel word the consensus would falter. There is no need to remove Puerto Williams or Punta Arenas. And for info I'm Scottish. Justin talk 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widely vs commonly

The only difference between Proposals 4 and 5 is "widely" (4) vs "commonly" (5)

Either (prefer "commonly", but "widely" is OK.) Elphion (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Prefer widely it reads better but then I would say that. Justin talk 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer "commonly" but agree with 201.255.223.193 about that since the term commonly is used there is no need to refer to PW or PA in the first sentences. This article is about Ushuaia and because of that since say that it is "commonly" is more less accurate, we doesnt need to name Ushuaias rivals on the first paragraph. To name Pa and Pw in the first paragraph would also desestabilize the article with some people erasing them or putting them as the southernmost.

Ushuaia (pronounced [u'swaia] in Spanish, /u'ʃwaia/ in English) is the capital of the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego. It is commonly regarded as the southernmost city in the world.Dentren | ^Talk 07:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply a revision to the PW article also. Likeminas (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Again with the warning comment in the text. Justin talk 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and support warning comment. Elphion (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support prefer commonly or often.Likeminas (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discover this "new" discussion. As an argentine maybe I should not vote on this one but is not Punta Arenas almost 200 km North of Ushuaia ? And is not almost half Puerto Williams buildings and personel military ? (may be wrong) --Jor70 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These points were raised and taken into consideration above. The key point is that since "city" is a subjective judgment, WP is not declaring that Ushuaia is the southernmost city (which our sources do not agree upon), but that it is commonly considered so (which reflects the sources). Elphion (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But even Rio Grande is south Punta Arenas. Anyway, can we cut a bit the opening paragraph ? Is too large and ugliest the page. Perhaps both city name and prision history could be later --Jor70 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Río Grande is smaller than both PA and U, and north of Ushuaia, so it would hardly influence the discussion either way. The injunction against editing without Talking applies only to the "southernmost city" bit. Feel free to edit the lead otherwise. I would suggest a new section ("Description" or some such) immediately following the lead, and moving the photo into the new section so that it doesn't skew the formatting of the lead. Elphion (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some of opening as suggested. Regarding the issue, the fact ushuaia is also the world's southernmost international civilian airport should also be mentioned somewhere --Jor70 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be a section for "transport". Dentren | ^Talk 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

denied by Argentine authorities ??

in the newspaper Clarín reported that the designation "Southernmost city in the world" was transferred to Puerto Williams by a joint committee from Argentina and Chile, but this information was denied by Argentine authorities,-REF- http://www.diputados.gov.ar/dependencias/dcomisiones/periodo-116/116-1243.html Draft resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of Argentina -REF-

The given reference doesn't fit the statement.

The reference is a to a meeting of the "COMISIONES DE TURISMO Y DE DEFENSA NACIONAL" (what a mix!), and they edited a "Proyecto de resolución" (not a resolution), that should declare:

La Cámara de Diputados de la Nación

RESUELVE:

Expresar preocupación ante la difusión de la falaz información publicada en un medio de comunicación masiva, sobre el traspaso del slogan que caracteriza a la ciudad de Ushuaia como la ciudad más austral del mundo a la población chilena de Puerto Williams."

The page does not show any resolution and the proyect only "express preocupation" and nothing more. That is right so, then the Argentine Congress could not declare which is the southernmost city of the world.

So I corrected the text.

--Keysanger (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread the text here. The Camara de diputados (Lower House) expressed preoccupation about the "fallacious" or "treacherous" (falaz) information in that newspaper. Also a "Resuelve:" specifically means a "Resolution by the Lower House" (ie Diputados). Hence I personally don't agree with the need for another citation, since the lower house has actually refuted or called that information in Clarin "falaz" (fallacious or treacherous). It is rather strong language to use in condemnation of a newspaper article. Note also that nothing more was said about this issue in Clarin or any other newspaper. Chuckarg33 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a City by Republic of Chile

This should settle this ongoing controversy of whether or not Puerto Williams is a City or just a Town:

Entidad Urbana. Conjunto de viviendas concentradas con más de 2.000 habitantes, o entre 1.001 y 2.000 habitantes, con el 50% o más de su población económicamente activa, dedicada a actividades secundarias y/o terciarias. Excepcionalmente, los centros que cumplen funciones de turismo y recreación con más de 250 viviendas concentradas y que no alcanzan el requisito de población se consideran urbanos. Ciudad (Cd). Entidad urbana que posee más de 5.000 habitantes. Pueblo (Pb). Entidad urbana con una población que fluctúa entre 2.001 y 5.000 habitantes, o entre 1.001 y 2.000 habitantes, con el 50% o más de su población económicamente activa dedicada a actividades secundarias y/o terciarias. Excepcionalmente se asimilan a pueblo los centros poblados, que cumplen funciones de turismo y recreación con más de 250 viviendas concentradas y que no alcancen el requisito de población.

This is copied direct from http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/territorio/division_politico_administrativa/pdf/dpa2001.pdf (hope copyright isn't an issue here?)

From the above it is clear that Puerto Williams is only just considered an 'urban entity' with its 2500 odd residents. Ushuaia passes this threshold by some 60.000 odd residents.

Note that the 2007 report also follows this rule by calling Pica, with 2642 people, a Town ie Pueblo Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re from 2002 census:

COMUNA CUT Entidad Urbana Categoría Superficie Urbana Censal ( Km²) Población Viviendas Punta Arenas 12101 Punta Arenas Cd 39,03 116.005 35.389 Cabo de Hornos 12201 Puerto Williams Pb 1,19 1.952 561 Porvenir 12301 Porvenir Pb 2,63 4.734 1.377 Natales 12401 Puerto Natales Cd 5,57 16.978 5.763

Obviously Pb is Pueblo or Town, Cd is Ciudad or City.

This should settle this argument for good, maybe?? Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a contradiction between INE's stadarts and PW claims.Dentren | ^Talk 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be, but note that throughout this last debate the definition of city was never considered from the countries' point of view. Ushuaia has 20 times the population of Puerto Williams but this hasn't discouraged the proponents of Punta Arenas. 201.255.237.47 (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But all we can do here in wikipedia is present what others state to avoid personal research and hold a NPOV etc So all we have is what the countries say to define what a city is, in this case, specifically what Chile and what Argentina consider a City and what they consider a Town (its pointless to use the Sweedish definition obviously). Hence for that slogan Ushuaia is 'the southernmost city' while puerto williams is the 'southernmost town', because the other settlements further south aren't considered 'poplation urbana' etc Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References need Fixing

Can someone tidy up the References throughout the article? I'm guilty of several poorly built ones but I'm not all that confident about doing it properly. Several are repeated unfortunately and its generally messy.Chuckarg33 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Arenas vs Ushuaia New entry in 'Southernmost City'

Re this new entry:

"Punta Arenas, Chile, is also sometimes considered the southernmost city. While north of Ushuaia, it has a considerably larger population."

Are not both Punta Arenas and Ushuaia considered 'Cities', or defined as as City by both countries? so then this sentence really isn't necessary here. Its seems to be a personal opinion too, does it not? not NPOV.

Please add any thoughts here, otherwise I think the words above should be deleted from wikipedia. Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the discussion above?? "City" means different things to different people. We are not pushing a definition here, not yours, not mine, not any country's; just reporting what the sources say. The sentence you quote is perfectly in line with what I've seen in the sources. By suppressing this information, you would hide from readers that a significant number of sources list PA as southernmost city. WP is not the appropriate place to settle the argument. Elphion (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but, what? I did read and take part in the discussion above and a City certainly does mean different things to different people, for example the Swedes consider a City anything that has more than 200 people. But Chile and Argentina both consider Ushuaia AND Punta Arenas as cities (more than 5000 population) so both countries would classify Ushuaia as a more southern city than Punta Arenas. I agree that WP should not settle the argument but using a source from 1908 is surely wrong, since in 1908 Ushuaia was just a small town with 20 odd houses and punta arenas was then a city. Also one does need to decide which sources should be preferred when the information is contradictory, should we not? I mean that MTV source is nice and does say Punta Arenas "the self-proclaimed "southernmost city in the world." but the same MTV article prints that "Punta Arenas, Chile, a town" In this case we would actually ignore MTV's classification of Punta Arenas as a 'town' and still consider PA a City, would we not? Please let me know what you think of this. Chuckarg33 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you do when sources are contradictory, as they are here. Chuckarg33 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should add why these references aren't all that good:

New York Times 1908 Way too old. Back then Ushuaia had maybe 20 houses and Punta Arenas maybe 20 houses too!
CNN 2001 calls PA "the closest city to the South Pole" which is incorrect since Ushuaia is a City too and closer. But one can certainly argue that the source should be used here, I don't agree but consensus may well be different.
MTV 2008 ("self proclaimed") Calls PA a 'Town' and 'southernmost city" too so contradictory article.
BBC 2004 only one that calls PA straight out 'southernmost city'. But then again another BBC article BBC 2008 calls PA "a big town with about 120,000 inhabitants" and then about Ushuaia "Punta Arenas...and, along with the Argentine town of Ushuaia, the nearest thing to a proper city in the vast.." So which source from the BBC does one use here? The 2004 or the newer 2008 one.
Time Magazine 1936 Too old, calls PA "largest town in Patagonia" which is not true today. Would be better in the history of PA article.
New York Times 1987 - verified that is Punta Arenas they are talking about by comparing it to his itinerary - here As a 1987 article, may be too old but is about the Pope's journey to Chile only including PA. But then other NYtimes article use the slogan for Ushuaia does the 2004 article with "She flew to Ushuaia, Argentina, the southernmost city in the world," so again, which one does one use when its contradictory information? Chuckarg33 (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the solution is to say in the Ushuaia article that Ushuaia is usually considered the 'southernmost city' in the world, as in the current introduction, and in the Punta Arenas article that 'Punta Arenas is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world', since its 'sometimes' not 'always'. This because the article here is about Ushuaia and not about which city is the southernmost one. Chuckarg33 (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's arguing about old sources from 1908. Many of the sources Googled above (NB: not just the ones listed) are recent and not from South America, and they variously call PW, U, and PA southernmost. Most are simply judging for themselves what a "city" is. So regardless of the official definition by either country, there is a spread of opinion. We should report that as we have been reporting it: U is commonly considered southernmost, but (for various reasons) PA and PW are occasionally mentioned as alternatives. And that's a pretty positive statement for Ushuaia. Elphion (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, referring to a city as a town is not contradictory (at least in English); it happens all the time. E.g., the lead column in The New Yorker (magazine published in New York City) is called "The Talk of the Town". The applicable population for "town" is broader than for "city". And of course for some people "city" comes with other criteria (like a cathedral). Elphion (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Its better to have in the text that they all use or consider themselves the southernmost city for whatever reason and not argue too much here over who is right. I think though that most consider a City larger than a Town and that 'talk of the town' is more of a figure of speech. Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm pointing out is that it's common in English to call a city a town -- so that the articles using both are not contradictory. Elphion (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, fair enough. Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've started an article Southernmost City in the World to take most of the arguing over there, and hopefully the paragraph here on 'Southernmost city' to if people agree to do that. Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that's an appropriate way to handle things, but if I'm right it looks like it's been deleted. — e. ripley\^talk 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I not sure what you mean here, can you please elaborate? Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you are dissmissing references mentioning PA as the southernmost city could be aplied to the refernces mentioning Ushuaua as the suthernmost city. You must remenber that the official denifition by countries should be taken into account but they are not above other sources and qualifications for the settlements.Dentren | ^Talk 11:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article here is about Ushuaia and not Puerto Williams or Punta Arenas, I've moved the last two paragraphs in the southernmost city section to the new article Re: Southernmost city in the world. I believe we should keep this article more closely related to Ushuaia and take the controversies over to the more appropriate article. Please see talk page too as that article is still under construction Charlie (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reciprocity

Because I read that the southernmost issue is "disputed" in the article of Puerto Williams, I guess it's fair to include it here too. I proceed then as I hope no feelings could be hurt. Sobreira (parlez) 08:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Marriage

Does the gay marriage thing really belong here? I mean, really, it's a tiny little town with nothing but blue sea and sky between it and Antarctica. Does every place on Earth need a discussion of gay marriage in Wikipedia?? Based on teh gays in my office, I am sure there are dozens of other online resources gays can access which have ad nauseum discussions of every detail of gay legal rights in Ushuaia and every other place imaginable. I have removed it due to complete lack of relevance.24.17.192.214 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ushuaia as the venue of the first gay marriage in Latin America seems notable. The argument that there are other sources in the world doesn't make a strong case for removing information from WP. -- Elphion (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the phrase is ad nauseam. 70.107.238.239 (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reputed "agreement" was disavowed by Argentina

The "agreement" that was disavowed by Argentina must be presented to the reader. It is a relevant and well referenced fact. Argentina has often disavowed his treaties, anyway there must be comunicated to the reader (the pact, I mean) --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must be presented? It was a short-lived blip at most, and clearly never had the full backing of the Argentine government. You make it sound like Argentina abrogated a major international treaty. The whole question is so inconsequential I have difficulty understanding why the two countries spend so much emotional energy on it. It would be far better to put that energy into accomplishing something useful, like, say, establishing regular public ferry service across the Beagle Channel -- Elphion (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is supposed to be customary to discuss a reverted edit before trying to reinstate it. -- Elphion (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elphion,

thank you for your time. As you can see in this talk page, the "southermost city"-question is very important because is it an important theme in the promotion of Ushuaia as touristic city.

Can you provide references that Argentina oficially disavowed the agreement?. The fact that an agreement obtained in Chile-Argentina commision "comité de frontera" (emerged from the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984 between Chile and Argentina, the most important Ch-Ar treaty since 1881) has been oficially disavowed by Argentina, is worthy to be mentioned. But also the "don't-mention-it" stance is interessant enough.

I agree with you that it would be far better to put that energy into accomplishing something useful, like, say, establishing regular public ferry service across the Beagle Channel, for example. But in Wikipedia we have to deliver a balanced, referenced article. That is it should not be based on only half the truth, or worser, to hide the truth.

I apologize for my poor English and I beg you to correct my contribution in the article in order to reach the Wikipedia standards. I am also ready to change the form of the message in order to get a fluent article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References pointing out the incorrectness of the article in El Clarín were already supplied above long ago (in answer to an entry by you, incidentally, so you should already have been aware of them): This newspaper article is incorrect. Please see

http://www.diputados.gov.ar/dependencias/dcomisiones/periodo-116/116-1243.html and http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=101904

You maintain that this misreporting is an important flip-flop on the part of Argentina, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The newspaper got it wrong, and the government (both national and local) indicated they had no intention of abandoning the slogan. Nothing was changed, and the incident was nothing more than El Clarín going off half-cocked on some perceived national affront without checking its facts.

In regard to your edit summary for your recent reversion [12] ("Information remains important; don't delete the referenced material. get consensus in talk page."), I remind you again that that's what you should be doing, per WP:BRD. You made a bold edit (no problem with that), it was reverted, discussion was suggested -- but you reinstated your edit without establishing any kind of consensus. Accordingly, I am reverting your edit until we do reach consensus.

-- Elphion (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a constructive resolution: the article Puerto Williams reports the same information in a more balanced way. While this is not nearly important enough to occupy space in the introduction, it could conceivably go in the Tourism section; but probably a better approach is the one suggested earlier: to remove it entirely to Southernmost settlements, where there is already a neutral discussion of the issue. -- Elphion (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have a impasse regarding the importance of the fact that there has been an agreement about the title "the southermeost city of the world" and that this agreement has been broken by one side. I will start an Third opinion or an RfC about this case. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree to move the information out from the lede into the main article?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why review the consensus?

There is no new element to this discussion and the user that removed the agreed text had participated in the previous debate.
There are no official records of the agreement reported by Clarín. And even if it were true (and, again, this was already discussed here) it is irrelevant.
The consensus was reached on a very specific wording taking into account the facts and their relevancy to the subject of the article.

190.17.69.249 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Road to RfC

I think it is relevant ~~and I think that the current version of the article is driven more by a commercial than by an encyclopedic interest~~. I assume that you aren't Elphion, and that in this case a third opinion is not possible. Are you Elphion?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "it is irrelevant", I want to remember that according to WP:NPOV:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. (Bold by Keysanger).

Your version of the issue doesn't include the agreement. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I always sign in to edit. The IP is not me.

(2) 'Significant' is obviously in the eye of the beholder. You have offered no evidence to indicate that this incident is not simply a case of El Clarín getting it wrong, as the other evidence strongly suggests.

(3) In particular, the agreement you keep referring to is bogus. Negotiations are not final until ratified.

(4) In any event, this trivia does not belong in the lead.

(5) You have changed a long-standing version of the article that reflects long discussion here. You should take part in a discussion of why you think it is justified. Discussion is supposed to involve something more than "we are at an impasse". I have suggested a possible path forward, to which you have not responded.

-- Elphion (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is a link to the article from El Clarín: http://edant.clarin.com/diario/1998/06/30/e-04801d.htm

The actual reporting in the article is straight-forward: the article reports on negotiations between Chile and Argentina held in Punta Arenas (presumably in June, 1998, although for some reason the story was filed from Río Grande instead of Punta Arenas, suggesting that the reporter was not in fact present). The negotiations were primarily about allowing Chilean military use of the land route to Puerto Almanza, across the Channel from Puerto Williams, despite indication from Argentina that the harbor at Puerto Almanza would need upgrading to handle military traffic. It's a little disingenuous of the reporter to go on about Islas Lenox, Picton y Nueva (as opposed to any of the much broader territory that Puerto Williams is defending), since that issue was settled over a decade earlier. ~~It's clear that~~ (see below) Perhaps the topic of "Southernmost city in the world" came up, and the reporter represents that the Argentine negotiators agreed to shifting it to Puerto Williams -- but in the article this has clearly not been ratified (for this is always referred to in the future tense). The interesting thing here is the headline: all it talks about is the change of title, nothing about the military negotiations (which are the primary point of the article), and implying that it is essentially a done deal, though it's clear the negotiators do not have plenipotentiary power. In short, the Clarín editor seeks to stir up sentiment against the negotiation, to make sure that it is not ratified.

So what we would like to see is any indication that those provisions of the negotiations were in fact ratified.

-- Elphion (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: It's not even clear that Ushuaia's slogan came up in the discussions. It's not germane to the topic the commission was negotiating, and in their report to the Chamber of Deputies (link above) the commissioners flatly deny it. Perhaps this was a political denial; but perhaps also El Clarín was indulging in yellow journalism. Hard to know at this point. Whatever the truth, I've yet to see any evidence that the government agreed to such a change. -- Elphion (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by Keysanger the "southermost thing" in this page is very relevant. In that context this short drama involving Puerto Williams is relevant. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: is the southernmost agreement a irrelevant one?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We have a long standing discussion about whether is it relevant or irrelevant the background information about "the southernmost city in the world". Should the article include this information?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1998 the Chilean-Argentine "comité de frontera", a bi-national commission derivated from the most important treaty between both countries since 1881 the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984 between Chile and Argentina, agreed [13] that the southernmost city of the world title belong to Puerto Williams, on the south shore of the Beagle Channel.

Nonetheless, the tourism board of Ushuaia had promoted the city "as the southernmost city in the world" and google seems to favour Ushuaia. But that is not the question here.

The question is whether the reader has to be informed in the article, and not only in another article, that there was a agreement and that this agreement has been disavowed by the Argentine authorities

[14] The Argentine senat deals with the issue
[15] the tourism board denied the agreement

I think it is worthwhile for the reader to know how important is for the city of Ushuaia to be considered the the southernmost city of the world. The article Puerto Williams has the complete story of the agreement.

Moreover, WP:NPOV is very clear about this:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Keysanger has taken this to RfC already, as he has yet to answer the points raised above, and has misrepresented the incident. In short: of his three references, the first is an article in El Clarín reporting that the commission agreed to transfer the title from Ushuaia to Puerto Williams, but the second two references report official denials that the matter was even discussed. So despite Keysanger's claim, there was certainly no agreement on the title. The first reference represents false reporting by Clarín to try to derail the real negotiations that had taken place (attempting to set up new arrangements for the peaceful administration of the border between Argentina and Chile, among other things by arranging for peaceful military transport of Chilean forces across Tierra del Fuego see below). Keysanger is correct that this is correctly (if elliptically) described in the article Puerto Williams, and I have suggested that something similar be added to the Tourism section of Ushuaia, or perhaps preferably that it be removed to the article Southernmost settlements, which already has a section on the title "Southernmost City of the World" and is probably the right place to put this. -- Elphion (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside commentator - I would say that if the fact that it is the southern most city in the world is factually accurate and verifiable with sources (as appears above per Elphion's comment) - then it is definitely relevant to include it. Connolly15 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Connolly,

the question here is not whether Puerto Williams or Ushuaia is scotw but the background of the agreement that some editor try to hide. If this agreement (or not-agreement) was worthwhile to be reported to the Argentine Senat, is it worthwhile to be reported by Wikipedia?. I think by WP:NPOV yes, it is important and is to be reported in the lede. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

(1) Keysanger asked on my talk page where I got the notion that military transport across Tierra del Fuego was discussed, and the answer is -- by misreading the article (ref 1). Even though security forces from both countries were present, there's no clear indication that the talks discussed military transport. The crossing of the channel from Puerto Almanza appears to have been aimed at the benefit of the economy of Puerto Williams and the convenience of its inhabitants.

(2) The possibility that the title SCOTW came up, as reported by El Clarín, is therefore higher; but the fact remains that in the other reports (refs 2 and 3 above) the commissioners present at the talks deny that any such agreement was reached, and I have seen nothing further from El Clarín (or any other source) denying the charge that their reporting was inaccurate.

(3) It doesn't strike me as odd that the commissioners should report to the Chamber of Deputies, especially given the press coverage from El Clarín. Note that the Deputies are not rejecting an agreement made by the commissioners; the commissioners are instead reporting that no such agreement occurred in the first place.

(4) So the summary of this in our article on Puerto Williams is correct: El Clarín reported an agreement, but this was denied by the commissioners present. I have no problem adding that to the Tourism section of the present article, though I think Southernmost settlements is a more appropriate spot, rather than repeating the information in several different places.

(5) I agree with Keysanger, against Connolly, that the fact of being SCOTW is not in fact factually verifiable, as the *long* discussion above adequately illustrates. It is sufficient to note that Ushuaia (among other places) claims the title.

-- Elphion (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate matters. And both have been discussed previously. The first is Ushuaia's condition as the southernmost city in the world, reflected in the beginning of the article (with sources). Note that it has already been agreed that it may not be universally accepted that Puerto Williams is not a city, so the wording "commonly regarded" was used. The other is the controversy of whether Argentina handed over the slogan that has caracterised Ushuaia in favor of Puerto Williams. This is also mentioned in the article. What I consider irrelevant about the controversy is that, no matter what the outcome is, it won't magically make Puerto Williams known as the southernmost city. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be a propaganda organ.190.17.69.249 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Puerto Williams doesn't claim (any more) to be the scotw. I didn't find sources asserting that.

Puerto Williams, the southernmost town in the world (by a Chilean government website) seems to be the new slogan promoting Puerto Williams.

I would agree to change the content of the "Ushuaia" article for including these facts. The disvowed agreement remain as a short reference and can be referred as a "old claim" or "past discussion" or something like that. (Of course the assertion that "PW's as scotw is dubious" by a WP-editor is wrong in an article of the English Wikipedia and can't be sustained).

The inclusion of this new fact would release the tension of the wording and would push the disclaim into Argentine domestic policies.

That is my proposal to resolve the case. What do you think Elphion? IP-User?.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I just noticed that the SCOTW claim and some of its history it already included in this article (under Geography). In light of this, what specific changes to the current text do you think would be advisable? -- Elphion (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include I agree with Elphion that the current text which describes the dispute appears to be proper weight. However, the lead should probably also have a few words, e.g. it can say, "... commonly regarded as the southernmost city in the world (a title disputed by Puerto Williams)." LK (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include - [RFCbot suggested I offer my uninvolved opinion.] Content in Geography gives this issue due weigh but needs work. For example, the sentence "As a center of population, commerce, and culture, and as a town of significant size and importance, Ushuaia however clearly qualifies as a city." appears to be OR and SYN but is in my opinion unnecessary. Ushuaia's status as a city has already been well established from the lead onwards. Brief neutral mention of scitw controversy in the lead, per Lawrencekhoo, is appropriate. Joja lozzo 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include a mention of Ushuaia's claim but there is at least some controversy about it, which should be acknowledged. I suggest: Collect all the information about the controversy (including the purported agreement, whether Puerto Williams is a city, etc.) in one place, probably Southernmost settlements; then articles like this one would note that the claim is made but is disputed and include a wikilink to the article collecting all the details. JamesMLane t c 14:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include I agree with JamesMLane and his diplomatic proposal.--Fox1942 (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IncludePer what has been said above. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Include per JamesMLane's proposal. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Include in the manner suggested by Lane. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough feedback from the community and it is overwhelming for the inclusion of the background of the dispute in the lede. I support ...commonly regarded as the southernmost city in the world (a title disputed by Puerto Williams). --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just framing: Southernmost is an objective term, and "city" is where the subjectivity comes in causing the dispute. Therefore, "The largest of the southernmost settlements..." can avoid the contention over bragging rights and yet state the matter with objectivity.--cregil (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention-- I'm an uninvolved editor.--cregil (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:

It is commonly regarded as the southernmost city in the world^[1]^[2] (a title long disputed by smaller Puerto Williams).

has been accepted. No objections. RfC closed. Thanks to all participants in the RfC for civility. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Climate Data

There is an inconsistency. In the text and the yearly extreme, the coldest temperate is -21C (-5.8F), but in the month of July in the table the record low is -25.1C (-13.2F). I can't read the original sources in Spanish though. Lies from the tablecloth (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish version's text agrees with the table (-25.1C), which is sourced to government data. Unless there's another source, that's probably what we should use. -- Elphion (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you go to the Secretaria de Mineria link, the record low of -21.0C is found there under the title "Estacion Río Olivia" under the term "Tempertura minima absoluta" (absolute minimum temperature). The geographic coordinates point to Ushuaia. Even the website for record highs and lows indicates a record low of -21.1C. That record low of -25.1C is a lie and was probably an unsourced change to the climate data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ushuaia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ushuaia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Remove "Symbols" Section

I propose that the "Symbols" section of this article should be removed. That information belongs in (and is already in) the info-box, rather than its own section of the article.

Alatorr (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Argentina National Parks Series - Port of Ushaia - Stamp released 2023-01-00.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

While it’s true that the /ʃ/ exists in Rioplatense Spanish, Ushuaia is pronounced /u’swaja/ nonetheless by Argentines. 190.19.144.181 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Bandeira de Ushuaia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Introduction was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Britannica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] "The Microsoft Way", essay by Robert McHenry

[2] Si la historia la escribe Microsoft, quiere decir que hay otra historia (in Spanish)

[tele13-3] Teletrece Internet. "Puerto Williams: la ciudad más austral del mundo sigue creciendo" July 17, 2005.

[martinic-4] [http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/magallania/v34n1/art01.pdf EL POBLAMIENTO RURAL EN MAGALLANES DURANTE EL SIGLO XX. REALIDAD Y UTOPÍA, Mateo Martinic Magallania, 2006.]

[Introduction-5] Cite error: The named reference Introduction was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Britannica-6] Cite error: The named reference Britannica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]