Talk:Argentina/Archive 8

I want to make clear this obscure topic in this article. UBA's study is mentioned here stating 56% of the population with Amerindian ancestry. However, on the next paragraph we can clearly read that " An estimated 7 % of the population is mestizo.[74]"

If we seek the definition given by Wikipedia Mestizo: is a Spanish term that was used in the Spanish Empire to refer to people of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry in Latin America. The term continues to be used today in the Americas, the Philippines, and Guam to refer to people of mixed European and other indigenous ancestry.[4] The term is mostly used specifically of those people of the particular racial mixture of European and American Indian who inhabit and comprise much of the population of Latin America.[5]

Therefore, the "estimated" 7% argentine's mestizo population should be up dated. Besides, that 7% was estimated by whom? --echidna2007 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You leave no room for self-identification! Besides, the entire concept of mixed race/multiracial wouldn't exist, per your reasoning; why? Because every human being *is* admixed. Over the course of human history genes have travelled from one corner of the globe to the other. But that tends to be disregarded, so that only recent ancestry is considered. Now the question, in a country where the census figures are obtained per self-identification — as you already know — is whether 56% of Argentines self-ID as mestizo. They do not.

Likeminas, thanks for rewriting that sentence. It may yet receive some tweaking, though. SamEV (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. They're figurative corners... don't think about it too much. SamEV (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentina is a melting pot of different peoples, both autochthonous and immigrants. Citizens of European descent make up the great majority of the population, with estimates varying from white 89.7% to 97% of the total population. The last national census, based on self-identificacion, indicated a similar figure.

According Wikipedia information Ethnic groups: 86% European (Italian, Spanish, German) 7% Mestizo 2% Amerindian 4% Other

As a point of comparison, the United States of America is 74% white in terms of self-identified race. In other words, Argentina is a nation with a self-perception of more European ancestry than that of the United States!! Argentines consider themselves to be a fundamentally European derived people, in other words, they're a settler society like the United States, Australia or New Zealand.

In the U.S. they don´t use the term "European ancestry" but "Caucasian" or "White" including Arabs as Caucasian, so if Argentina uses the same term as the U.S. ("Caucasian") then the result would be that over 90% of Argentines are "Caucasian" as 4% have Arab ancestry (Lebanese, Syarian etc) including former President Carlos Menem.--83.35.182.110 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

But what do the genes say?:

A study conducted by Argentine, Swedish and North American institutions, established that the genetic average structure of the Argentine population, contains 79.9% of European contribution, whereas the Amerindian admixture, though not fully visible in physical appearance, was estimated to be present in a high percentage of the population, close to 56% on either paternal or maternal lineages, of which just 10% were shown to have Amerindian ancestors on both lineages.

This study, Argentine population genetic structure: large variance in Amerindian contribution, has more detail:

Argentine population genetic structure was examined using a set of 78 ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to assess the contributions of European, Amerindian, and African ancestry in 94 individuals members of this population. Using the Bayesian clustering algorithm STRUCTURE, the mean European contribution was 78%, the Amerindian contribution was 19.4%, and the African contribution was 2.5%. Similar results were found using weighted least mean square method: European, 80.2%; Amerindian, 18.1%; and African, 1.7%. Consistent with previous studies the current results showed very few individuals (four of 94) with greater than 10% African admixture. Notably, when individual admixture was examined, the Amerindian and European admixture showed a very large variance and individual Amerindian contribution ranged from 1.5 to 84.5% in the 94 individual Argentine subjects. These results indicate that must be considered when clinical epidemiology or case control genetic analyses are studied in this population. Moreover, the current study provides a set of informative SNPs that can be used to ascertain or control for this potentially hidden stratification. In addition, the large variance in admixture proportions in individual Argentine subjects shown by this study suggests that this population is appropriate for future admixture mapping studies. Additionally, as in most Latin American populations, the admixture exhibits a strong sex bias, it seems that maternal lineages (mtDNA) are much more Amerindian than paternal (Y) lineages. The results above use autosomal markers, that is, examining points across the whole genome, so it is not surprising that the Amerindian fraction is far lower than what mtDNA would show.

So what does the genetics tell us in combination with the social data? Individuals will admit or identify to non-European ancestry only when it is visible, because white identity is normatively preferred (in the United States the proportion claiming Native American ancestry has increased in direct relation to the rehabilitation and romanticization of Native people). If one assumes that only with an ancestral proportion around 1/3 can one not deny non-European ancestry (at least on average), then the vast majority of Argentines with a significant proportion of non-European ancestry (on the order of 5% or greater) could likely pass as white.

The bigger picture of what this tells us is that identity is a synthesis of various factors. The Argentine identity is shaped by social considerations; the self-perception that Argentina is a European society, the tacit assumption that to be white is to be a normal Argentine, and so forth. But these preferences and social dynamics lay atop genetic realities mediated through phenotypic perceptions. In plain English, if Argentina had a more balanced Amerindian and European genetic contribution a straightforward self-image as a European settle society would be implausible, too many characteristics which would identify a strong non-European genetic ancestral component would be extant within the population. As it is, since Argentines are mostly European in ancestry the non-European signal, which is easily discernible at the genetic level, is also easily masked. This is a function of the way our cognitive engine interprets traits and engages in categorization. Genetic inheritance is a discrete process, DNA information is encoded along base pairs, but because of the incredible number of points we naturally tend to engage in a blending fallacy in our everyday relations. In terms of phenotype our classes are coarse, and instead of engaging in some sort of complex statistical inference we simply utilize rough & ready heuristics. We bin people into their categories, and we reconceptualize any more finely graded variation to conform to our small set of distinct classes.

--echidna2007 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the English Version regarding the Study- It is also worth noting that out of the 12,000 person sample in the 12 provinces, 10% were of Pure Amerindian background. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI.. this article just crashed Safari running on an iPod Touch. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual HDI of Argentina is 0.879. It is 38th on the ranking. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.0.39 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics and ethnicity have been contentious sections in this article and we've had countless discussions, and agreements, over the course of the years, trying to resolve this issue. Below, I offer a summary of the most recent debate, the conclusions that have been derived, and what I consider should be discussed next, instead of debating and redebating the same issue in circles.

Most Recent Debate:

• The article had a claim that almost 98% of Argentines where White or European. Several users here (and in the Spanish wiki) contested this claim, by citing a stud which concluded that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian ancestors on either their mother or their father's side, and 10% on both. Using the same sources, this article was also changed to reflect this reality, back in 2006. Several discussions (and edit wars) ensued, no conclusion was reached. The findings were inserted and deleted at different points in time.
• When the article was last changed, per Verifiability and NPOV all sources were cited, those who traditionally claim that Argentina is mostly white (namely the CIA Factbook), the 2002 Census in Argentina (the first to classify population by ethnicity since the 19th century and based, however, on self-ascription) as well as the results of the genetic studies. All were properly contextualized.
• Due, in part to the systemic bias of Wikipedia, as well as to the controversy of the findings themselves, this section has been repeatedly vandalized or "edited" to delete the genetic information. The article Demographics of Argentina has suffered the same fate.

History of Debates/Arguments:

• On reliability:

• Some users (myself included) have claimed that the genetic study is fully reliable: it is the most comprehensive genetic study ever conducted (the first to be made on a "national" basis) by the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings were certified or endorsed by the Government of Argentina through the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Moreover, these findings have been corroborated by additional genetic studies. [1]
• Other users (mainly Fercho) have claimed that the studies are not reliable and that the results were flawed. Since the genetic studies have been proven to be "verifiable" (the main criterion for inclusion of facts), he was asked to also provide a reliable and verifiable source to prove his claims. He failed to do so. While he presented two additional studies [2] and [3] that he claimed "contradicted" the study of the Ministry of Education upon revision it was shown that:

• The first was limited in scope (it sampled individuals from the city of Buenos Aires, which, for many historical, economical and demographical reasons is by no means representative of the entire country)
• Both studies actually approached the issue of ethnicity from a different angle. These studies tried to determine the average Amerindian, White and African contribution on the average Argentine. The Amerindian contribution was estimated at 15-19%, with a large variance (1.5% to 85%). These studies actually complement the study of the Ministry of Education: The latter claimed that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian ancestors, the two studies tried to determine the average Amerindian contribution within those Argentines that have Amerindian ancestors.
• Non-Academic (or non-Scientific) sources, were presented, but they should not be taken into consideration, since they are, in the best of cases, tertiary sources and not primary sources (for example, one of the "sources" presented was: [4])

Conclusion:

• After several weeks of debate in which the above arguments and counter-arguments were presented, a consensus was reached. Fercho and I agreed to include the genetic studies, properly contextualized, along with the other sources, like the CIA Factbook and the Argentine census.
• The section, nonetheless, continued to be vandalized this time by "anonymous" users. Constant reversions were made, until we got tired of it. (I even took a three month break). Fercho and other users eventually reverted back to the version where no genetic information was given. Eventually, other users noticed the change, and started a new debate with Fercho. He used the same arguments he had used before to prevent the genetic articles from being included.

What should be discussed:

• First, it has been proven, time after time, that the genetic study is a verifiable and reliable source. This particular debate must be closed. There is no point on contesting the reliability and verifiability of the study, when it was been proven to be both. It was certified by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Argentina, and corroborated by additional studies. There is therefore, no question about its reliability. Unless Fercho and/or other users present equally reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that they are flawed, this issue should be considered as settled. No consensus is needed to agree that a proven reliable source is reliable.
• As a side note; tourist brochures, country-facts web pages, and the CIA Factbook cannot be used as sources to contradict the genetic studies. They are tertiary sources, not primary sources. Several such sources (including geocities webpages) have been even used to support the preposterous claim that 70% of the Argentines are Italian, and then presented as equally reputable sources for ethnicity.
• Despite the fact that Fercho and I had a consensual agreement, if we reopen the debate, what should be discussed? Not again on verifiability, but on the pertinence of citing the genetic studies in the Demographics section of this article.

My position regarding the pertinence of including the genetic findings

It is my position that these findings should be included, contextualized, along with the other sources. Why?

• First and foremost, per WP:NPOV, which demands that all points-of-view (approaches, if you will) be equally presented. Adding two or three lines to the Demographics/Ethnicity section suffices and does not reduce the quality of the article, as it was claimed before. Neither the CIA claims, nor the Argentine Census need to be deleted; all three sources should be presented.
• These findings are primary sources, unlike the CIA Factbook, travel guides and even encyclopedias which are, by definition tertiary sources. Tertiary sources, rightly so, cite or summarize the findings of primary sources. When one of the scientists was interviewed he claimed, "I think the European component is overestimated".[5] Rightly so, in recognizing the precedence of primary sources over tertiary sources, the newspaper Clarín, when they first published the results, concluded, "In the meantime [while the scientists conduct complementary research] the foundational myth is questioned: should we erase that section on all travel guides and encyclopedias that claim that 85% of the Argentine population is of European origin?" [6]
• Secondly, these findings are important. The conclusions of the authors of the study, and endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology say: "The information summarized here [in the genetic study] is based on scientific observations that allow us to redefine the purported belief of the European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the actual constitution of the Argentine population. These type of researches tend to contribute to the characterization of the identity of our country in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (End of quote, emphasis mine).[7]

If such a redefinition or characterization of the identity of the country is important, then the findings are important enough to be included in this article. --the Dúnadan 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. they don´t use the term "European ancestry" but "Caucasian" or "White", including Arabs. So, if Argentina includes the 4% of population with Arab ancestry (like Carlos Menem, of Syrian ancestry) the "White" or "Caucasian" population in Argentina is over 90%. Also, take into account that in the U.S. it is enough for some Indian tribes like the "Cherokee" to be 1/16 Cherokee and 16/1 White to be considered Indian, so in the U.S. usually being "Native American" is just a fake, folklore without substance.--83.35.182.110 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, First, I'd like to say that the studies that are being used as a source to prove that 56% of argentines have some degree of amerindian background are being misinterpreted. The study was done without contemplating population distribution and therefore its conclusions cannot be used to state that which is being stated. One third of the samples (100) were from the south, which has a very low population, the other third (120) from the center which has more than half the population of the entire country, and the last third(100) from the north. As you can see, population distribution was not taken into account; otherwise most of the samples would have come from the center area of the country, more like => South 20 / Centre 220 /North 100. And let's not even start asking for the sources of the samples.

Second, there's no point in adding these misleading studies in the article. I'm Argentinian, and I as most of us, feel european. I'm sorry if someone else thinks of this differently but most(I mean most) of our families have been in argentina for 4-5 generations only or even less. And the pre-immigration population was too small compared to the millions of immigrants to make much difference. The great majority of meztizo or Amerindian people that you can see in argentina today come from the north of the country or from paraguay, bolivia, peru, etc..

I live abroad, and I'm tired of having to explain everyone why I feel I have more in common with a european that with a peruvian. People is ignorant by default, and having these studies in argentina's wikipedia article only confuses people. It does not help nor provide useful information on Argentinean people. Only harms an already confused identity.

Please we already have enough with our own politicians trying to make us believe we are amerindians so that they can isolate us from europe even more and generate resentment against the first world in a chavez style... I'm tired of listening to phrases like "Not everyone in Argentina comes from Buenos Aires"(meaning not all Argentinians are European) when most Argentineans do come from Buenos Aires or from european populated cities like mendoza, rosario, etc...

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sports This article must include the famous football player Diego Armando Maradona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.212.165 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please if you don't believe me, check the study for yourselves. If you are able to find a single line or phrase in the study stating that 56% of all argentines have some degree of amerindian background, then and only then will it be right to add it to the article. Of course that won't happen... as the study does not lead to that conclussion. Until then, stating such things as facts would go against Wikipedia rules. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course that won't happen? I wouldn't be so assertive if I were you.

By the way did you happen to notice that almost 1/4 of this very long talk page discusses the genetic studies? Did you also happen to read what people said about it?

Did you notice that the Ministry of Education & Science of Argentina also comes up with the +50% figure from a compilation of different studies [8], thus complementing and corroborating the one you claim to be biased?

So, I guess now it's time to place the information right back in the article as you promised.

Of course that won’t happen.

Likeminas (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all

I would like to start by trying to get consensus on this one small thing (but probably going to be discussed for three weeks and shooting matches starting)

"The majority of these immigrants came from XXXX and XXXX."

1. "Spain and Italy"
If the Spanish were first immigrants or they have the most descendants, and the country's national language is Spanish

2. "Italy and Spain"
If the Italians were first immigrants or they have the most descendants, and the country's national language is Italian

Ok. Now, why do these keep getting swapped around?

Can we have consensus on this one small point so we don't get reversion after reversion just for this ??

--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Being a Spanish colony, the first immigrants-excluding Amerindians-were Spaniards. The national language of Argentina is Spanish. I haven't found a reliable source that claims that Italians have the most descendants. (Only one was presented which was a newspaper article that claimed that 70% of Argentines had Italian ancestors, but of course that doesn't preclude 90% of Argentines of having Spanish ancestors, obviously). --the Dúnadan 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The period 1857-1940 covers the bulk of the immigration, and the Italian outnumbered the Spanish 3-2.[9] SamEV (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is a not useful for demographic - it spreads immigration over 83 years, and although the figures are quoted as 46/33% split it doesn't give the figs by year or decade so we cannot use those really for demographic breakdown. Superb for immigration though. The problem is that if the Italians started to arrive in 1870 or later, it is possible that the country is equally descended from both, or one may be more than the other.

Just because there were more immigrants from one side it doesn't mean to say that there are more people from that lineage. 2,600,000 to 1940, and the pop in 1940 was 16 million, so with all immigrants taken out (from your figs) that leaves 9,400,000 that were NOT immigrants - what do they consider themselves? Spanish, Italian, French, Poles, Turks ??I'll redo that bit below --Chaosdruid (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Superb for immigration though."

And that's precisely the question you asked. I answered it and gave you a source. I made absolutely no claim concerning which group has more descendants.

BTW, you miscited the figures. It's 2,970,000 Italians; 2,080,000 Spaniards; and 1,561,000 others, for a grand total of 6,611,000 immigrants. SamEV (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So we see from Sams figures that Italians are the largest group of immigrants and can we agree that we can leave it "Italy (46%) and Spain (33%)" ??

It looks like the pop in 1940 was 13,000,000 (thanks to SamEV) so if we take the immigrants from Italy, Spain and the rest out it's around 6,400,000 that were not immigrants so what did they consider themselves ? Spanish, Italian, Amerinds, French, Poles, Turks ?? The census of 1947 may not have asked what their ethnicity was. With a pop growth rate of 1.25% from 1810 by 1947 we would have had pop of only around 2,600,000 which means those immigrants had a big affect

COPIED FROM MY CHAT PAGE
To be honest, if people wish to know more about the demographics they would normally click on the link to the Demographics of Argentina which is listed just above next to the header for the section, as well as at the end of the paragraph. Surely we could just put any information on the study in the Demographics of Argentina article, as the paragraph already states "based on self-identification, 600,000 Argentines (1.6 %) declared to be Amerindians"
The genetic study shows a large percentage have Amerind ancestry still doesn't affect the fact that only 1.6% of them claimed to be Amerinds. Perhaps tagging on "...to be Amerinds, with Amerinds contributing to around 17% of the genetic makeup."--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all

I am sorry but I had to go off for a while - Firefox crashed while I was writing a long note to someone.

So how are we all ?

I realise this debate has gone on for over 2 years. I think it might be best to summarise it and then try and find out how to agree either agree to agree or agree to differ and then decide how to stop all the reverting and arguing. If that's not possible then I shall just have to take lessons in Dispute MAnagement

1 This is the article for the people of Argentina to show their history and themselves to the world on en.Wikipedia

• All information contained in the page should reflect that this is the page of about that nation, not just an article on Bubble gum or Sand
• We need to keep things civil and try to get the article back to the Good Status it previously held.

2 The topic which is being discussed is of a volatile nature, people are constantly reverting (call it rediting if you like) and managing so far to avoid the 3RR
3 There has been much said already about this over the last 2 years so it may only be necessary to refer to the previous comments and Wiki policies.
4 It may be that the idea to start a new page as a sub of the main article to discuss these things on before everyone agree on the answers is the right way to go, if this goes on much longer the page will be as big as half of Wikiworld.

I am a TOTALLY impartial and NPoV person here, I am not Argentinian, and was considering removing the "Falklands" edits put in earlier today as it is not relevant to this article, and should be on a "Malvinas/Falklands" separate topic to avoid aggravating the people who live in the country this article is about. I do not for one minute think that anyone from Argentina would go and put a "Malvinas" section in the "England" page.

Wikipedia:No original research

COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE ARGENTINA DEMOGRAPHIC DEBATE
Deleted as I think everyone has read this by now.
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

I will try and see if there are any copies of the census available - we need to know if there was any point between now and 10/15 years ago where an Argentinean Government census asked the majority of the population what their ethnic status was. If we cannot find this, we must rely on the CIA fact-book or another reputable source as all other articles do. Estimates published by reputable sources range from 82% White to 97% white.

If anyone can get a demographic breakdown from a census in Spanish off the Argentinean Gov Census website and translate that would be good. I don't speak or read Spanish so would be a problem, and the "English" button only gives limited access to GDP, Male/Female distribution and general population size.

--Chaosdruid (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid, here's my two penn'th; I've just checked the spanish version of the website and I couldn't find a single line regarding to race or ethnic origins, I guess there's simply no information about it. :S Regards, --Grimshep (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what this means ? I think it is referring to "having the same name as"

"The Sierra de Córdoba in the homonymous province (extending into San Luis)" and "Northern Patagonia (Río Negro, south of the homonymous river, and Neuquén) can also be"

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, that is what homonymous means. The phrases refer to: a) that the "Sierra de Córdoba" (Cordoba's Low Mountain Range) exists in the province of Córdoba, but extends also to San Luis; b) that the "Río Negro" river (literally, "Black River") flows across the province of Río Negro (as well as other areas).Nordisk varg (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is someone playing a joke ?
The section tag means put references in for the section, not add one reference for 7 long paragraphs and take out the tag lol. If I was to add "citation needed" tags it would be very messy and look terrible. Please try and put in at least 5 references, although 7 or 8 or even 12 would be good.

I will also be trying to add some, but just one in all that text is pretty bad. We are trying to get it back to Good Article are we not ? and if we are then there would be an expected minimum - see here Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment that section does not make it past "Start Class"

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled that the genetic origin of Argentines takes up so much room here. After seeing a docu on Argentinians reclaiming closed factories, I wonder if that should not be :So fix it – please. SamEV (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, very impressed that most of the discussion is centered on race and the level of "purity" of argentines, yet the article itself does not mention anything of Argentina's ties with Nazi germany. It is not a small fact, since this had the direct effect of isolation Argentina out of the Marshall Plan and locking it out of its main market, thus stregnthening the long decline.

205.160.23.2 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So fix it – please. SamEV (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Argentina? that's kinda insulting, if Argentina had links with nazis then how about nazi political parties in USA or Italy, not even talking about Germany or United Kingdom. Nazism in Argentina is forbidden by law and any nazi belonging to the ww2 Germany is deported for trial, plus I don't see any sources of nazism in Argentina do I? Nazi's self exiled from Germany are distributed all around the globe. There are some nazis in Argentina because of the inmigration policies from Europe during the last century and relative low borders security, also worth noting is that Argentina supported Allied Troops in ww2 though they didn't enter in active combat. Please, watch out what do you have to say as this is kind of insulting and you posted without any references nor sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.169.80 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the source. It was a white paper called something like "Carmelita's (or Carmencita's) Sad Tango." It was a pdf of about 120 pages that detailed the economic history of Argentina from 1880s to 2001. It tried to explain how Argentina devolved from one of richest countries to what it is today. The thesis was that a combination of protectionism and dependence of europe put the country in a bad shape. There is where the claim that because Argentina sided with fascists during WWII, that the US forced all recipients of Marshall Plan funds not to any business with Axis allies.

205.160.23.2 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your source is the work by Mauricio Rojas "Carmencitas sorg: Argentinas kris i historiskt perspektiv" ("Carmencita's Sorrow: Argentina's Crisis in Historic Perspective"), originally in Swedish, whose third chapter is named "Carmencitas sista tango?" ("Carmencita's Last tango?"). It has been edited as a book by the Timbro editoral in 2002, and its pdf-link is this [10]. Mauricio Rojas is originally from Chile, but settled in Sweden where he became a Member of Parliament (Sweden's Riksdag). His thesis is interesting, though of course open to debate. The title of the book makes reference to a well-known ballad from Sweden called "Fritiof & Carmencita", about Fritiof (a Swede sailor) and Carmencita (an Argentine girl, a tango dancer). It was written by the Swedish bard Evert Taube, who lived in Argentina in the early 1900s.Nordisk varg (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather thank linking Argentina with the Nazi you should link PERON with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.159.186 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

By the time of WWII in Argentina, neutrality was not some kind of shadow support for the axis. The war was rejected as a war where Argentina had no national interests involved: to declare war to the axis meant to give up to international pressure. To refuse to declare that war did not had popular support because of popular support to the axis, but because neutrality itself was regarded as a national virtue and joining the allies would undermine that.

By the way, despite the pressure from the US, England supported Argentina keeping a neutral role. That allowed England to receive provisions from Argentina during wartime, more easily than it would had been possible if Argentina was officially at war with the axis (wich would mean that ships from Argentina would be attacked by axis ships). In fact, the US did not want to let Argentina join the UN due to the late declaration of war, but Argentina joined it anyway because England countered the US critics.

And a side note: consider that the millitary power of Argentina was nowhere near the ones displayed in that war. Before condeming Argentina for not joining the Allies the first day, have in mind that declaring war was not some simple political gesture with no o little practical effect: it would have been almost suicide. And in exchange of what? What would have Argentina earned by letting itself be devastated? Remember, wars are never fought because of ideals or good vs. evil sides: the economy and national interests are always the key. MBelgrano (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't show sea borders anywhere else, it looks really odd. Can that be taken out? Zazaban (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Territorial claims should not be displayed in the infobox map, but rather in an appropriate place in the article, so to keep a NPOV consensus to the article and avoid edit wars. The infobox map should display the territories under the sovereignty of that country. Sogosg (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See user:MusicInTheHouse I did bring up the map topic ages ago and no one responded so I changed the map as no one has challenged that change, except you now, in a manner which would seem to be revenge because you only reverted the change I made after you reverted my Ireland change and saw this change I had made in my edit history. Sogosg (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And today after a long period of no one challenging the matter I changed the map to a more precise map. Aogouguo (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You were challenged instantly after you inserted the map. Per WP:BRD the change should be undone and then discussion can take place. Please self revert.MITH 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was open for ages, and you don't count because your challenge was a revenge edit for me editing the Ireland article. No one genuine has challenged the map. Aogouguo (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you refuse to accept my revert and are discounting me as an editor then some actions will need to be taken as that is a disruptive mind frame. Please self revert then discussion on the map can change.MITH 00:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's discuss the map Aogouguo (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I state that the map I put on this article is better than the last because (1) It is NPOV because it does not include any disputes, unlike the last, and follows the general rule of leaving disputes out of the infobox map, as disputed territories are discussed in the relevent place in the article, as is done here. (2) It is clearer and more detailed and the same used by neighbour Chile. Aogouguo (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll discuss it with you after you revert your change, per WP:BRD.MITH 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your opinion on which map you prefer is so I don't know which version to implement, as you seem to be the only other involved editor. Aogouguo (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the map even though the preconditions were unacceptable under the circumstances. I owuld like to hear your views on the maps. Aogouguo (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally! I agree that the map should not have claimed territories, but the orthographic projection is far superior to the standard map as a map in general. I shall see if I can upload a new version of the map tomorrow morning without the claimed territories. That should satisfy us both.MITH 00:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept your proposed version of the map and would like to add any enhanced detail to the map would also be good, like that of the Chile article. Aogouguo (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created the proposed map and added it to the article. Aogouguo (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/778193e4-44d8-11de-82d6-00144feabdc0.html I believe this is great article that could be of some use in this page? Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. That's just an editorial MBelgrano (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Whys are there so many names? Which is the real(official) one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWay555 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All of them are real and official. However, Nación Argentina (Argentine Nation) and República Argentina (Argentine Republic) are by far the most used ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.11.238 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This site: [Argentina] has an article writen in 1913 about Argentina.Agre22 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

I have started an overhaul of the article because it is not composed of summaries but extensive dialogues, which in some cases rival even the daughter articles. Frankly, we do not need duplicate lists of cities, or a multitude of subsections, or so many images. In a couple of hours I have reduced the article from 162,584 bytes to 146,157 bytes. It would be better to view the separate edits to get an idea of what else needs to be done. Let's be clear that there is no target size but 160K is far larger than a top-level article should be. Green Giant (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

no mention of Nazis party members fleeing to argentina?why not?this is fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.129 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason not to include it, except we need good reliable sources, so if you can find some then we can put this in. Green Giant (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

cant be bothered doin it my self but that channel Military history (Sky channel 531 i think) often has shows about Odessa and they always use the words Mecca when talking about Argentina (from a Nazi perspectitive) and apparently the dictator in argentina at the time received help and training from SS men about dealing with Communists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.129 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you follow the pattern used in wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_phonology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_phonology#Phonetic_notes

The Spanish pronunciation for República Argentina would be spelled; [re̞ˈpuβ̞lika aɾxẽ̞n̪ˈt̪ina] You can check and read the Spanish phonology article. Can you change it? 92.3.44.56 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

the southern region of Argentina is called Patagonia. north of Patagonia is a region called the pampas. which of these regions has the greater population density???

Buenos Aires, Santa Fe and Cordoba gather the biggest numbers of population in Argentina. The Patagonia is mainly without big populations, due to the hard climatic conditions. MBelgrano (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

what currency does Argentina use? (money source?)

The currency is called Peso MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WHY THE HE** DID U DELETE MY UNINTELEGABLE COMMENTS?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Bonehead (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Highest temperature recorded in Argentina needs an update. the highest Recorded so far was 57ºc (134,6ºf) in January 9th of 2007, In the City Las Lomitas, Formosa Province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincourtz (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This site: [Argentina] has an article about Argentina's economy.Agre22 (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

And this site: [La Nacion] is in Spanish and from an Argentine newspaper La Nacion.Agre22 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Argentina is the only nation in Latin America with a net positive migration rate: about 4 net immigrants per 10,000 locals, yearly

I just checked the source (which is the CIA world factbook) for the above statement and the net migration is Zero. Please somebody remove that false statement as I cannot edit a protected page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.123.4.230 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the statement, I corrected it according to what the source says. Hope that helps. Likeminas (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody keeps adding that net migration is positive. That's not the case.

The source being used clearly says; 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.) country comparison to the world: 76

1)That's not even slightly positive. It's Zero, i.e. as many people leaving the country as they're coming in.

2)the source says nothing about Argentina being the only country in L.A. with a positive net migration.

As such, I will revert to the correct information in order to reflect what the source says.Likeminas (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest figures by the UNPD put Argentina's net migration at -0.5 per 1,000 population. Slightly negative. For postive net migrations in Latin America, see 2005's net migration for Chile or Costa Rica. Or this comparative table 2005-2010 projection. I think we should update the information to reflect a more reliable source that unlike the CIA worldfactbook can be also used to compare countries directly.Likeminas (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The picture showing the Gran Rex says it's a cinema, when it's actually a theatre. It would be good to correct that! Thanks.
(Iammaru (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Tracy is now the current ruler of these awesome lands. She has all power for ever and eternity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.72.2 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Argentina has the most homogenous European population outside Europe. Due to the severe White-Only immigration policy, the country was vastly populated by Europeans. The Amerindians and blacks were assasinated.

CIA Ethnic groups for Argentina: Unmixed White (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%, mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups 3%

URL: Central Intelligence Agency USA Worldfactbook (Ethnic groups) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How is Argentina relation to the world at large? Is Argentina suffering of the blurring of boundaries in society in the global world? I would like to contribute with a articular view on the issue. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about Foreign relations of Argentina?

Infobox "spanish" link is wrongly directed to "rioplatense spanish" article, as if it were the standard spanish spoken in Argentina. I suggest this link to be redirected. Thanks. --IANVS (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To Castellano#Latin_America? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think | Spanish Language would be better. Thank you. --IANVS (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  Done --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the number of Nazi's who fled to Argentina to escape trial?Am i to presume that the History Channel, and almost every show they have on about ODESSA or Nazi's in general, is wrong, and there are no Nazi's in Argentina? Sort it out.Please 90.201.215.63 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a main article and should be focused in a globa scale, without getting into such detail. This topic hasn't had any specific effect on the curse of events of Argentine history, so t should be left out. As there's information left out from all governments and time periods, for the sake of being short and consise. You can find a whole sectio on it at the article of Perón. MBelgrano (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am from Argentina. I think this article has greatly improved since the last time I read it. But, it still looks (although less than before) more like a piece of propaganda than like an article of an encyclopedia.

To begin with, it is too long. If you see articles about other "new" countries like ours in Wikipedia and compare, this one is unreasonably long.

As an example: The history of the last 30 years takes a lot of space and should be shortened, as it is in disproportion to the rest of our history in this article.

There are too many phrases that should have no place in such an article. A few of them:

-Argentina has produced many more internationally noted writers, poets and intellectuals...

-Argentina is a major producer of motion pictures. (unquoted)

-More recent films from the "New Wave" of cinema since the 1980s have achieved worldwide recognition...

....local films are released weekly and widely followed in Argentina and internationally. (unquoted)

-Even low-budget films have earned prizes in cinema festivals (such as Cannes),... (unquoted)

-Built at the end of the 19th century, Teatro Colón's acoustic is considered the best in the world. (unquoted)

-Griselda Gambaro, Roberto Cossa and Carlos Gorostiza are Argentine playwrights well-known internationally. (unquoted)

-Argentina has abundant natural resources, a well-educated population,....

Most (if not all) of these nationalistic stuff is unquoted, even when it implies relevant facts, such as:

-There is a myriad of argentinian writers that are noted internationally. (Great!)

-Most of the released argentinian fims are widely followed internationally. (Wow!)

-Three relatively modern playwrights are well known internationally. (if this was the case, it would be really fantastic for us for most countries aren't lucky enough to have even one).

Any of these assertions is totally out of place in an article that should present facts in an objective way.

Other lines should be modified, such as:

-Argentines are the largest Spanish-speaking society that universally employs what is known as voseo...

Is it a merit to use "vos" instead of "tú", to point out proudly that we are "the largest Spanish-speaking society that universally" speaks in that way? Wouldn't be more reasonable to just say that "Argentines employ what is known as voseo."

-The official language of Argentina is Spanish, usually called castellano (Castilian) by Argentines.

The use of the name "Castellano" for the official Spanish was no invention and has nothing to to with Argentinians. The Spaniards are the ones that insist that this language be called Castellano, and they call it so, for they think that Galician, Catalan, Vasque and other languages are as Spanish as Castellano. Nothing to do with "Argentinians calling Spanish "Castellano"" as if it were a local custom.

As usually happens, such a forced nationalistic view often leaves aside true known facts that could be regarded as praiseworthy by some. For instance, regarding to slavery the article points out that: Argentina did not import large numbers of slaves,... But says nothing about Argentina totally abolishing slavery in 1813, which may be an interesting fact for it was one of the first countries to do so, considering that similar legislation in other countries (e.g.: UK, Spain and Portugal) was partial, often restricted to the mainland and not valid elsewhere.

And last but not least: Taking into account that U.S.A has the largest English speaking community worldwide, and all official documents in the U.S.A. should refer to Falkland/Malvinas when addressing those islands, I see no reason why in an article about Argentina a territory under claim shouldn't be addressed this way. This is not a British document where they must be consistent with their position. This is an article of an encyclopaedia, where all perspectives should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.96.66.41 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

About 3 million people live in Buenos Aires cityand 12.8 million in the Greater Buenos Aires metropolitan area, making it one of the largest conurbations in the world.(citation needed) -> Can someone please add a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.61.48 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the falkland islands shown in green on the map they are part of the uk and not argentina!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.84.203 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a sovereignty dispute over the islands. Under Argentinean law, the Malvinas islands are part of Argentina, hence are included in the map. This is so even if they're under the de facto control of UK. This is specified in the legend below it. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, reading the article of argentina, i see one error in the constitution of federation actually they are 24 states the last one its Tierra del Fuego with the capital Ushuaia. I supose u try to correct this error pls.

TY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanos77 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, actually Argentina isn't made up of 24 states – it has 23 provinces plus the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. Just thought I'd clarify!
(Iammaru (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Also I find the map of argentina completely insulting to a british person as it shows the falkland islands in a shade of green when they are in now way connected to argentina and are part of the U.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.14.143 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia it aims to encyclopedic content. Thus objectivity. You may find it insulting, just as it's insulting to Argentineans to see it on UK maps as theirs, and even by the name of "Falklands", but this is Argentina's article, and under Argentina legislation the Malvinas are part of its territory. To avoid misunderstandings with the actual situation, it's clearly stated that they're not under the de facto control of Argentina but UK's. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the part saying "the light green areas show parts of argentina not under de facto control" this is because they are not under any kind of control by argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.84.203 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon, do you know what does "de facto" mean? Please. IANVS (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, an objective position would observe the political FACTS, which is that the Falkland Islands are under control of the UK, and are therefore not a part of Argentina despite what you, me or anyone else says. If the president of Argentina declared legislation tomorrow making the Moon part of Argentina's territory, would you include that on the map? It makes about as much sense. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not under de-facto control means they are claimed by Argentina - I presume that is still true, and therefore they should be on the map. If Argentina claimed territory on the moon that would also be worthy of inclusion. For example the map of India includes the territory actually controlled by the Chinese and Pakistanis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The military expenditure of $6000 million is wrong as the gdp figure assigned to defense is around 1% and current gdp is about $330.000... this is even in the source cited. It seems that the charts in that source have been misinterpreted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.135.7 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it says "defense and security" in the chart cited, which I think would include the federal police, coast guard and border patrol. Total amount for the military must be around half the 6000 million figure but I haven't found a source with the exact figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.135.7 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous comments are right, the figure is wrong and the source has been misread. Someone with an account please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.198.55 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Will someone please edit? It is only changing a 6 for a 3, for the reasons explained before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.200.232 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, though you could have done it yourself ages ago :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This article looks like a publicitary touristment spot, it doesn't show any important facts, it should be wikificated.--BlacBull (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely welcome to start working on it. Add the important facts along with reliable sources. Dawnseeker2000 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your statements. --Western Pines (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A request for comment related to this article has been opened here. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the Falklands are in the ambit of the South American continent, the article on the islands would be the only part to be forced to use imperial units. That is the proposal. It is yet more ridiculous because the UK itself is so far down the road to metrication that WP would look odd to insist on imperial units as the main units.

Discussion here. Tony (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Congress, the United States spends billions of dollars every week to control societies in South America. Utilizing current Pentagon technology, that would mean that the sovereignty of Argentina is either a gift out of the kindness of Obama´s heart or a carefully crafted simulation meant to deceive all of the people all of the time. Yet the article does not have a section entitled United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.255.214 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I presume you have a reliable source for this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In section "health care"

Perón's Minister of Health, Ramón Carrillo, borrowed from German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's support for employer or guild-sponsored plans and the British National Health Service.

Bismark died in 1898. Carrillo was born in 1906. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.131.101 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The following text: "Argentina claims the British overseas territories of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" should be changed to "Argentina claims the Falkland o Malvinas Islands, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" because to denominate a geographic place whose de jure possesio is under discussion in international law by the title "British overseas territories" is not impartial or objective. The sovereignity status of the islands is under discussion by resolutions of the United Nations Organization (Resolutions 2065 and 3160). The fact of its occupation by the British Forces, with their motherland at a distance of 8000 miles, does not establishes in International Law the undisputed sovereignity over a territory. EPAMINONDAS FLIASIO (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will make this edit since your reasoning seems sound, but if someone more familiar with the material reverts me, then I will not make it again. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) This is English Wikipedia and names are in English.

(2) The United Kingdom doesn't claim the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, the United Kingdom administers them. This needs to be made clear as a claim is a country's claim to the right to administer a territory which is administered by another country. The Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are not under any form of international administration or joint administration. Do not confuse the status of Antarctic claimed territories with the status of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.

(3) Neutral wording and WP:NPOV is to state something as it actually is (WP:Call a spade a spade) and not to use WP:weasel words in order to create a so called neutral wording which is however incorrect.

(4) It is obvious the person who proposed these changes is simply an Argentine sockpuppet troll account wishing to instill Argentine POV and nationalism into the article, due to the their incoherent nationalist ramblings and the fact this was the only edit ever made by the account. 88.106.118.127 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

88.106... remember to assume good faith. It's a fair point that the article could be a little more neutral about the dispute. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

what is obvious ? Its necessary to discuss this every year ? why dont we create a blackboard! The sentence used by the US, UN etc of "administred by UK claimed by Argentina" is the more reasonably. Also the spanish name its essential in articles such this. Wikipedia is full of translation names on all topics areas. --Jor70 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the projection of Argentina include the Antarctic claims, Falkland islands, South Sandwich and South Georgia islands claims? All of those claims are on British territory, and the fact that those claims are included in the image is very misleading. I don't know how to change the image, but could someone else change it so that it only includes Argentina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.157.16 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been already mentioned above. All surface over Argentina's continental platform and the maritime boundaries, including Falkand/Malvinas, South Sandwitch, and South Georgia, are under Argentina's territory. It's so by law. True, the islands are under de facto British control, but as this is Argentina's article, for Argentineans and inside all the Argentine territory, those islands are part of it, thus it's correct to include them as part of Argentina, stating the previous current situation. Just like they're British under British article. There's an international claim over territorial sovereignty, that should be discussed on another article.

About the Antartic claims, several countries have them, including UK, read the Antarctic Treaty System.

Both situation, Antarctica and dispute claims are explained in the article and discriminated on the map. I see no need for correction. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would expect the same to apply as does to Chile on the Antarctic claims after that RFC is finished. With regards to the other islands they should probably stay in, as per India etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Argentina they are Argentine territory. But last time I checked, there were British troops stationed all over the islands, all residents are UK citizens, and they Use the Pound sterling as their currency. They are also claimed by the UK and recognized far more widely as British overseas territories, but they are not shown on the info-box picture for the UK, so why should they be shown here when there is an even weaker claim to sovereignty over the territories. Antarctica definitely should not be shown regardless, due to the Antarctic Treaty. Antarctic claims are not shown on any other country except for Chile. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They're already in the respective article. If you want those territories to be included on UK's article, discuss it in its talk page. There is no doubt about the de facto control of the islands by UK. That is de facto, but in laws, under Argentina their are Argentine, and internationally, some countries support UK's claim, others Argentina's claim. As long as they are correctly defined, I don't see a reason to remove them from this article. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 23:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• About the Antarctic, it should not be displayed in my opinion. These are pretentions rather than claims, as there are no disputes whatsoever (there is no sovereignty of any kind on Antarctica), they are only needed on the Antarctic or ATS article. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as the United Nations and other international organizations do recognize the sovereignity conflict over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as legitimate claims, I see no reason at all to remove those claims from the image. As for the Argentine Antarctica, actually the Antarctic Treaty only suspends the claims, so it does not annul them. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the map is innacurate and misleading. Is it forgotten that Argentina also claims Chilean Territory? Show the actual Argeninian borders on the map, leave off their ridiculous claims. Argentinain claims should remain purely in the text of this site. Acorn897 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentina does not claim Chilean territory, if that is your argument. The map is not inaccurate nor misleading, as the actual territory is depicted in a different shade than the ridiculous claims.

Salut, anyway, --IANVS (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If the mention to Chile talks about the Beagle conflict, that has been resolved years ago MBelgrano (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the disputed South Patagonia Ice Field?

IMO the map should not include Antarctica for reasons of clarity, because it's not included in equivalent images for other countries, and because the claim is effectively suspended by the Antarctic Treaty. The Falklands and SGSSI, if they are to be included, should be included in a different shade, and should be clearly distinguished from Argentine-controlled territory in the caption (as currently). Pfainuk talk 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How many other countries have their claims colored? 86.145.85.145 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick survey for anonymous: India, People's Republic of China, Chile, Venezuela have all displayed their claims at the infobox in the same manner a Argentina. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The independence of Argentina was recognized on September 21, 1863.

See es:Argentina (a featured article) and es:Guerras de independencia hispanoamericanas#Negociaciones de paz y reconciliación.--201.6.83.146 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked, but I see at the top of this page in massive red letters: "Congratulations! Wikipedia's one-billionth user. Click to collect your prize!" This is obviously a scam. --108.3.214.144 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit has been removed now, an account added it to a couple of dozen articles. Hope you did not click the link. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Argentina also has tornadoes and severe thunderstorms (during spring and summer). It has the second severe weather afer US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotizi (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Imposible, Argentina don't have tornadoes, I'm living here and i have never seen a tornado

No tornados here in Argentina. Perhaps you've got any source, Leotizi? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

it is argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.144.198 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

i'm living in Argentina and i can tell you it depends of the provinces, there are tornadoes in the "Llanura Chaco-Pampeana", if i get information about tornadoes in Argentina i send you the source!! bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos16arg (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I study geography in a high school (In Argentina) and learn that Argentina have Tornado but doesn't have hurricanes. This is because in the southern hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.115.68 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

this is HDI (2007 (2009)) : 0.866 and not : HDI (2010) : 0.880

Thank you. ;) note: do you know when we would have the new list of HDI (2010).

Carlos16arg (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the {{Failed verification}} to HDI 2010. It appears someone retrieved this new information and not updated the source. The current source Human Development Report 2009 displays 0.866 for Argentina for the year 2007.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

how many flowers aremin argentina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.90.84.118 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for the claim that the Latin is derived from the Greek term and not a cognate? --Espoo (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This etymology is from "Λεξικόν Λατινοελληνικόν" (Latin-Greek Dictionary), by Stefanos Koumanoudis, ISBN: 960-333-029-9, p. 65, from ἀργέντος, gen. of ἀργήεις. In addition Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary also gives ἀργήεις, while Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon mentions another gen. form, -ᾶντος instead of -έντος. A Macedonian

I thought the whole region was named after all the silver flowing from Potosi.

205.160.23.2 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please evaluate the chance of adding information on the soaring levels of corruption in Argentina since the late 1980's. thanks.196.34.139.36 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a tricky issue due to NPOV and BLP concerns. We cannot write allegations. If you have documented cases, with someone being found guilty by a legal process, and with enough proper sourcing then we may consider it here before it is placed in the article. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I migth add that such topics, even if confirmed, should stay at their specific articles. The country as a whole is a topic too general to focus on this level of detail. MBelgrano (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I should have said that. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} The section on Sport states that the Argentine Football League is the third oldest in the world. This is incorrect. Please change this to 'fourth oldest'. The Scottish Football League was founded in 1890 and is older (see Wikipeda 1890-91 in Scottish Football)

Sanz1820 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Partly done: I actually just removed the whole sentence, because it doesn't make any sense. How can the first league tournament have been held in 1891, when both this and the AFL article state the league formed in 1893, 2 years later? Unless someone has a citation explaining this discrepancy, it seems best to me to just leave the whole sentence out. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article states: "Argentina is a full member of the Mercosur block together with Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela; and five associate members: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru."

Venezuela is not a member of Mercosur, it just signed a membership agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REAiassa (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Source: Wikipedia article about Mercosur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercosur) — Preceding unsigned comment added by REAiassa (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

note at the economy section that is says tat Argentina holds the second highest HDI and GDP per capita of the region after its neighbour chile. This is not correct. Argentina is holding the second highest HDI but at this point it holds the highest GDP per capita according to the last IMF rank. Please check this information and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.19.151.146 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Given the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Argentina has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America regarding factor Purchase Power Parity (PPP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.5.119.125 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there are no mention about Unesco world heritage sites in Argentina. Tovk909 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article has grown way too big, the length of the article proper (from the top to the "see also" section, excluding links and references) is excessive and makes navigating the page a tedious experience, particularly on a mobile device. This discussion is meant to gather consensus on any measure to bring down the length (if not necessarily the file size) to a more manageable level. No content would need to be deleted from Wikipedia: the text excised from this article could be used to expand other important articles, like Culture of Argentina, Demographics of Argentina, Geography of Argentina, etc. which are often in a a state of neglect despite being supposedly the 'main' articles about those subjects. Using featured articles such as Australia or Belgium as a point of reference, I think that the demographics and culture sections stand out for being particularly bloated. Based on these considerations, I would suggest:

• removing the Climate section, leaving just a short phrase about it within the larger geography section;
• drastically reducing the Ethnography section, and merging it with the demography section. I don't see the point of discussing so extensively ethnic groups in a page that should offer a more general overview of the country.
• removing the Urbanization section, though the 'largest cities' template can stay where it is;
• merging "flora" and "fauna" to a single Environment section;
• merging the Culture and Communications sections and shrinking them to 5 sub-categories: Art, Performing arts, Media, Cuisine, Sport.

Naturally, any additional suggestion is more than welcome (this is a collaborative project after all ;) ).--LK 10:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin to implement some of these changes, starting by rearranging the sections to match the layout of featured articles about countries. If you don't agree with my edits you should revert, but please revert only the part you think I shouldn't have changed, and leave a comment here on the talk page.--LK 14:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Transcluded from Sherlock4000's talkpage.)

This was not the best way to go about putting the material back in.

A change of this scale should have been done in two or three stages, and with many more edits than 1 massive one.

By all means reinsert material that you think has been taken out incorrectly, but it should not impact on more recent edits, and definitely not on a series of copy-edits that had significantly improved the article.

THe page has, for a long time, been far too big. This has been mentioned on several occasions back since Fenruary 2009 when I took great legnths to copy-edit it last time.

I spent a long time yesterday copy-editing the article and have undone your edit so that we can work together to ensure that the reinsertions do not further damage the article.

Next time, perhaps undoing the removal would be better. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Before discussions start

• The page is extremely large. General consensus, from WP:MoS, is that a section should have a link to the "Main" article and a summary of that article in this one.

Economics and Demographics

I understand where LK is coming from, but he must understand that this article is a very sensitive one and discussions can easily become very heated. I have worked alongside Sherlock before, almost exactly a year ago, and am a neutral editor. My only interest is in getting the article into a good state.

It is important to ensure that the materials which were removed did not remove any context, nor any NPOV (through stating both sides of a point). To that end I think that we can work on this to establish exactly what needs putting back in, and find consensus on how that can be best achieved.

I propose starting a new subpage to put the removed material into and from there we can cut it down/editi it to a satisfactory state ready for re-introduction. Is this a satisfactory route ? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for most of the cuts, I obviously join Chaosdruid in opposing any massive revert. I agree that if there's consensus to add something back it should be added back, by any means, but let's discuss it here first. And again, I can't stress enough that no material has been deleted or "wiped out", I used most of the Demographics and Culture section from this article to improve Demographics of Argentina and Culture of Argentina, which were previously in very poor conditions.--LK 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, what the hell happened to the article European Argentine?!--LK 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I think it was moved to "White Argentine" which resulted in it being deleted - yup Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Argentine Chaosdruid (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@LK: I appreciate that you understand the "main" and sub-page issue (and I quickly scan checked the edits you made yesterday) and that the material you removed was kept in the sub-pages, the problem is that the Argentina page is the main page and we often come across situations where newly added material, not present on sub-pages, has to be taken off and put in a sub-page leaving a summary. This tends to happen on pages I regularly edit such as Robot, Robotics and Ukraine amongst others. The issue here is to ensure that any material removed is adequately summarised on the Argentina page.

Often sub-pages have been left untouched and in one recent case the sub-page was only a third of the material on the parent page. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the remaining sections which were re-added by Sherlock are:

• Climate
• Demographics
• Urbanization

(in media section)

• • Literature
  • Cinema
  • Music -> Radio and television

Radio and television: Pointing to the "Communications in Argentina" page was not really a good choice for them - I have corrected the "main" in the section to point to "Radio in Argentina" and "Television in Argentina" where there is far more information.

Music: The same may be true for "Argentine rock" and , it may need adding in the music section as a second "main".

Holidays and Print seem fine. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the economy section should be the last out of all the sections to be reduced. Again I would start with the demographics and culture sections.--LK 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just been comparing other articles, Germany and United States to this one. The Culture section in the US article is 1357 words, in Germany it is 2320 and in Argentina it is a massive 3062. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good way to go about this, I had completely forgot about DYK check. My revision was 1380 words, perhaps a bit too brutal but closer to the right size compared to the current one.--LK 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The demographics section is currently 1406 words long, Australia (Featured) is 750, Belgium (Featured) 944, Germany (Featured) 1051. The previous revision for Argentina was 908 words long, so it was absolutely average.--LK 23:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Chaosdruid/Argentina/Changes and added the demographics section to it. I think it will be best if we do the changes on there and then put it back in once we are all agreed on the new text.Chaosdruid (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The current word count is 1434 words, can we set an indicative upper limit of 1100 words for this section?--LK 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Underlying lk and Chaosdruid:

My exchanges with both of you have led me to believe the article is in good hands. Please consider replacing the rather incongruous Economic section for the one with my changes (which says the same in fewer words):

(removed to User:Chaosdruid/Argentina/Changes)

Please remember that the Leloir Institute received ample mention in Science and technology in Argentina (such as it is), and that the country's economic history is covered at some length in Economic history of Argentina (which the version above will link readers to).

I remain available should you have any questions or comments. Thanks again for taking the time to do this.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"the country's economic history is covered at some length in Economic history of Argentina"

So are demography or culture in their respective articles, and in fact the economy section is about a third the length of the culture section. I maintain we should seek reductions elsewhere.--LK (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done The Economics and Demographics sections have been cut down and replaced and the Culture section now awaits surgery at the User:Chaosdruid/Argentina/Changes page

Culture section

"Argentina has, after its neighbour Chile, the second-highest Human Development Index, and the highest GDP per capita in purchasing power terms in Latin America." I don't get the point of mentioning Chile in this Argentina related article. When you go to the chilean article, it does not say that "Chile has, after it's neighbour Argentina, the second highest GDP per capita in purchasing power terms". I don't think this is something worth mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.232.129 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking because I was reading infobae today, a major conservative news outlet in Argentina, and there is an article about a projection that there will be 40 million mobile broadband subscriptions by 2016. Obviously not the same as having 40 million people subscribed but its still impossibly high for a country with only 40m people in it, including children and infants; especially with a slow growth rate. source --— robbie ^{page talk} 17:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Population is about 40m so the claim is high and sounds to me like marketing hype. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Erich Priebke (apparently) incorrectly claims that there is a statute of limitations for murder in Argentina. This is at least not true in most countries. --Espoo (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Gini Index that the article reports is old (2009); the last results are:

Gini Index:

3rd third of 2010: 0.390

1st third of 2011: 0.379

Some sources:

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-153924-2010-09-28.html

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-165082-2011-03-29.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/TVPublicaArgentina#p/u/46/Lz1cseJKoDQ

http://www.indec.mecon.ar/

http://www.indec.mecon.ar/nuevaweb/cuadros/4/ingresos4trim_10.pdf

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-170183-2011-06-16.html

Facundil (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:14, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)}

The Largest Cities by populations are not showing the correct numbers, the numbers shown are for the Metropolitan area which sometimes includes other cities even outside the jurisdiction. Mendoza (only the city) has 112,900 inhabitants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza,_Argentina) the same with Tucumán, 527,607 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza,_Argentina) and its actual name is San Miguel de Tucumán. The numbers shown now are for the metropolitan areas usually called "Gran Mendoza", "Gran San Miguel de Tucumán", "Gran La Plata", etc. In the actual case of La Plata the number will be slightly minor, since "Gran La Plata" includes only 2 other jurisdictions that are not very populated. --Autusgo (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Today we know the offcial number of people in Argentina: http://www.censo2010.indec.gov.ar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.48.32 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)