Jump to content

Talk:Argentina/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Request edit of ethnic groups

That's only one group and 10% does not equal 100%. Also, I really, really doubt that 10% of Argentina's population is made up of purely indigenous people.

Yes, I agree with this. That 10% (if true) should be broken down into smaller numbers - how many are indigenous to Argentina and how many to neighbouring countries as a result of immigration. Would an indigenous Bolivian person be considered "indigenous" or "Bolivian"? It's simply too ambiguous. The other 90% should be accounted for too and simply putting "White European" (as it was some time in the past on this page) is far too ambiguous considering the population of Argentina is made up of people from pretty much all around the world.
At the same time, I don't really think citing a newspaper for a figure like this is appropriate. These kind of statistics should come from an official source or qualified academic source.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, although Argentina's government statistics are not a reliable source. [1] bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Economist is not a reliable source either, I wouldn't even trust it as toilet paper for fear of paper cuts and contaminating my colon with the lunatic fantasies of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Their racial stereotype image of this "Argentine villain" with a cigarette in mouth (not that they would know what an Argentine looked like) is world-class Economist propaganda, they truly outdid themselves there.
I'll have a look at the census figures at some point, which I don't think even The Economist would argue there's any point in tampering with. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"Lunatic fantasies of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman"? Wow. If you're ever tempted to act on such beliefs in article-space, I'd recommend a trip to the reliable sources noticeboard first. bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peron

This entry is like a love letter to Peron, and the main Peron article is not much better. Someone with real expertise in Argentine history needs to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.220.112 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Middle Power

Please, add that Argentina is a Middle Power, months ago was written in that way. Who changed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentowiki93 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Climate

I have fixed the climate section of this article since it contains many inaccuracies such as the fact that the north and Mesopotamia have a tropical climate. Not to mention that in articles that are featured articles such as the ones on Australia and India, they don't mention regional climates in detail that much (one sentence). So I moved it to the main article. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Second economy in South America

Hello, I suggest to add that information where says that "Argentina has the third-largest economy in Latin America and is a member of the G-15 and G-20 major economies". To give more information, I suggest to add that in this way "Argentina has the second-largest economy in South America, the third-largest in Latin America and is a member of the G-15 and G-20 major economies". Please the editor, I hope you add that info. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentowiki93 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Its good information but could you be more specific and indicate where the source that states this comes from (preferentially a reliable source that is recent)? Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you can check it out here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=59&pr.y=0&sy=2015&ey=2015&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=311%2C336%2C213%2C263%2C313%2C268%2C316%2C343%2C339%2C273%2C218%2C278%2C223%2C283%2C228%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C238%2C361%2C321%2C362%2C243%2C364%2C248%2C366%2C253%2C369%2C328%2C298%2C258%2C299&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a= Wikipediow (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Universal Suffrage

I'm not sure of my facts, but I think that Argentina may have been the first fully independent country to grant full universal suffrage, including the right of women to stand in elections (not just to vote). Either way the extension of voting rights deserves mention in the article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Where say: "During the 18th and 19th centuries especially, Argentina was the country with the second biggest immigration wave in the world, "

Need to say: "During the 19th and 20th centuries especially, Argentina was the country with the second biggest immigration wave in the world, "

Mgcanay (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I think some people get confused with centuries being one ahead - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Universal Suffrage

I'm not sure of my facts, but I think that Argentina may have been the first fully independent country to grant full universal suffrage, including the right of women to stand in elections (not just to vote). Either way the extension of voting rights deserves mention in the article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Where say: "During the 18th and 19th centuries especially, Argentina was the country with the second biggest immigration wave in the world, "

Need to say: "During the 19th and 20th centuries especially, Argentina was the country with the second biggest immigration wave in the world, "

Mgcanay (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I think some people get confused with centuries being one ahead - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Typo in History#Contemporary era

In the History, Contemporary era section of the article there is a typo in the last sentence - "takle" instead of "tackle". I can't edit it myself as the page is blocked shut.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:112f:3e0:b900:54f7:f957:5bc0:8015 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2016

 Fixed, next time use {{Edit semi-protected}} template instead. — TOG 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

1857 "recognized" Independence

I am baffled why this is listed in the country's information box. I have never heard of this date, and even if such a date exists, what does that mean? It is later than virtually all other countries in Latin America, which makes almost no sense since most other countries achieved independence LATER than Argentina. So there are several questions here:

1. Where does this date come from? Sources? I don't see any, nor is this date even mentioned in the section on independence. 2. Who is the entity that has the power to "recognize" Argentina's independence? 3. Why do they have have this power? On what basis is this power of recognition conferred to them? 4. Ultimately, why does it matter at all? Recognition of independence is unnecessary. Argentina revolted in 1810 and by 1813 had control of almost all it's then territory. 1816 they made it official. Other nations or entities recognition is ultimately irrelevant.

I have now had two people come to me saying Argentina's independence is 1857, I was stunned and asked them where you got this info. One said "online", the other "Wikipedia". This led me to this article.

I propose this item be removed from the information bar until there is more than enough justification to put it back in. Again, this date shows up nowhere on the article in question and is backed up by absolutely no bibliographical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.218.24.130 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Never heard that date either, the year of independence is 1816 and today is the 200th anniversary of that date. When a country is referred to as being "recognised" it simply means that it has diplomatic relations with other countries. Taiwan, for example, has very limited recognition, being only officially recognised by a handful of countries. I presume that in this case it is referring to the Spanish crown if it dropped its claims to the territory as I doubt other countries wouldn't have recognised it. I'll add a "citation needed" template since there's no source for the date, but having such a date is relevant. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not see how this is useful to the article. I support removing it on the basis that it is unsourced and has no references to back up this claim in addition to the four main concerns above. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Map of Argentina

How can the official map of any country contain its territorial claims? I think that this is against the Point-of-View policy. Texniths (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any claims on Antartica on this world map published by the United Nations. So I guess, the map as it is now, is wrong.--Texniths (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's how it's done on Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Chile and other signatories of the Antarctic Treaty System as well. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ipa Pronunciation

Should be ard͡ʒɛntiːnə. With the ͡ Paul E. Math (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

We omit the tie-bar for simplicity. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Citation Needed in Languages Section

I found the source of the citation in question but the wikipedia passage is a direct word-for-word copy of the original article and should be altered or removed completely. The source is an article from worldlibrary.org http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/eng/Population_of_Argentina#Population Zane.c (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"Worldlibrary" is a copy of the "World Heritage Encyclopedia", which is a mirror of Wikipedia. The credit is at the bottom of the page as "citational source". Kuru (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Upper Middle Income Economy

The source for the high income economy, no longer list Argentina as such. It is now classified as Upper Middle Income Economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8000:D84F:F031:F80E:9FA7:30B9 (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

no high-income economy

in 2016 Argentina is not a high-income economy. http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/high-incomehttp://data.worldbank.org/income-level/high-income  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.43.23 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2017

Welsh is spoken in the Argentine settlement of Patagonia, you should add this to the Languages section. 2A02:C7D:C60:8F00:64A6:D794:ACE0:B338 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is already there in the section on Languages. Welsh is spoken in an around Trelew. -- Alexf(talk) 16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

A picture caption in the section economy claims that Buenos Aires [...] is also the 13th richest city in the world. While the PwC claims that Buenoes Aires has the 13th highest GPD of all urban agglomeration, the per capita GDP is only at about 28,000 PPP USD, substantially below almost all urban agglomerations included in the table. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Argentina is in the southern half of South America

The word "portion" should be changed to "half" in the first sentence of this article. First past the post (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? Countries to not conform to geometry, and aren't defined by it. Using "half" is less accurate, more confusing, and distracting. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

The religion section of the Argentina's description which states: 74% Catholicism 15% Non-religious 8% Protestant 2% Other 1% Islam[5]

is not correctly supported as the document in [5] specifies a 4% "other religions" and does not specify Islam. Therefore, the lines

2% Other 1% Islam[5]

should be changed with

4% Other Kaan1000 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

I just want to edit a minor mistake,it will be very quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony7265378 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You will not be able to edit the article until you have made at least ten edits to pages on Wikipedia and you account is at least 4 days old. If you have suggested edits you can leave them here and someone who has sufficient privileges can make them if appropriate. ~ GB fan 19:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Argie" should be removed as a denonym

According to the citation for "argie" it is "Chiefly British Slang: Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive."

Due to the disparaging nature of this it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.230.71 (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed territories

Hi! I think that you should change the map used in the article. It doesn't show the areas claimed by Argentina (for example: "Islas Malvinas"). This map is the most complete and the one that should be used: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#/media/File:ARG_orthographic_(%2Ball_claims).svg --Airwolfgamer (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

"Though not declared official de jure" - As opposed to unofficial de jure? Or even unofficially de jure? ---- 91.10.53.60 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazi immigration

Argentina accepted Nazi criminals like Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele. Bariloche#Nazis in Bariloche [2] German Argentine, 12 000 Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Historical observations

There are a couple of phrases in the historical reference about Dirty War that are not completely accurate. I did not changed it, since that period of time is still controversial and I think a previous discussion should be appropiate. First, it is not entirely true that the Military Junta "employed violence...against anyone believed to be associated with socialism...or contrary to neoliberal...". For instance, the Communist Party was almost untouched, and non-revolutionary peronist were in general accepted, even within Armed Forces (although perhaps more in the Army than the Navy). Second, it is not true that the guerrillas were inactive in 1976. For instance, the clandestine, pro-guerrilla magazine Evita Montonera was edited until 1979, and several guerrilla acts were celebrated in most editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.209.80.141 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Territorial claims

Territorial Claims should be added in the map, as we have in Wikipedia in Spanish. --Airwolfgamer (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

[3] This? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This one https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#/media/File:ARG_orthographic_(%2Ball_claims).svg --Airwolfgamer (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

Under demonyms in the right sidebar, Argentine, Argentinian, and Argentinean are listed. However, there is no mention of Argentino or Argentina, the Spanish language demonyms. Jmkauff (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
These are in Spanish. We use the ones in English in the English Wikipedia. -- Alexf(talk) 19:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nazi immigration x2

Agreed, there should be information about the nazi inmigrants during the Peronist rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.104.5 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sol de Mayo at the infobox

I don't think the Sun of May should be in the infobox. As far as I know, it doesn't have a legal status by itself but only as part of other official symbols. At least, there should bear a title clarifying it's meaning or why it appears in the infobox.--77.125.85.13 (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Asian Argentines

I don't know if I'm doing this right, or if I already did it, but here it goes:

I would like to change the ethnic groups:

for:

Why?:

Because in the same page, it states that "The Asian population in the country numbers at around 180,000 individuals, most of whom are of Chinese and Korean descent, although an older Japanese community that traces back to the early 20th century still exists" but that's not written in the percentages.

According to the next pages: http://www.academia.edu/1416365/La_colectividad_japonesa_en_Argentina_entre_la_invisibilidad_y_el_Obelisco https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/comunidad-china-duplico-ultimos-anos_0_Syfgy52TDQe.html http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1682 https://www.indec.gov.ar/nivel4_default.asp?id_tema_1=2&id_tema_2=41&id_tema_3=135

...China, Japan, Korea (both North and South) and Taiwan would have 120.000, 65.000, 20.000 and 2.000 descedents, respectively, in Argentina. This would be around 207.000 inhabitants, and that would be a quantity even larger than the African population (149.493, according to 2010 Argentine Census). All of this is coherent to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Argentines", where it says that there are "212.000 Asian-Argentines". I have substracted this 0.5% from the allegedly "97.2% European and Mestizo", because in Argentine Census, it doesn't ask if you identify yourself as an Asian, but only if you were born in an Asian country, the rest will be wrongly and unrealisticly noted as "European and Mestizo".


Thank you very much,

Sartre (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Please change: Sartre (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Asian Argentines (2)

I'd like to change:

X:

for:

Y:

Sartre (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html
  2. ^ http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201611/171079-japon-visita-oficial-primer-ministro-nipon-shinzo-abe-casa-de-gobierno.html
  3. ^ https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/comunidad-china-duplico-ultimos-anos_0_Syfgy52TDQe.html
  4. ^ http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1682
  5. ^ https://www.indec.gov.ar/nivel4_default.asp?id_tema_1=2&id_tema_2=41&id_tema_3=135
  6. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html
  7. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html
  8. ^ http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201611/171079-japon-visita-oficial-primer-ministro-nipon-shinzo-abe-casa-de-gobierno.html
  9. ^ https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/comunidad-china-duplico-ultimos-anos_0_Syfgy52TDQe.html
  10. ^ http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1682
  11. ^ https://www.indec.gov.ar/nivel4_default.asp?id_tema_1=2&id_tema_2=41&id_tema_3=135
  12. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html

new photo

I suggest adding this image of a native Argentinian person, in order to respect the diversity of the country.

Luis Guaile, "Copacho", lonco tehuelche o aónikenk (native of the Patagonian region Argentina).

If anyone has any issues, use this thread. --WikiJuan (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That is the country where do i live in.

Well, Argentina and Chile are a brother nation. so you people, i am the new user of the wiki (polandball user). — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Modes Bernados (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

IDH decrease

The new HDI report published in 2019, with data from 2018 Argentina has an HDI of 0.830, in the previous report it has an HDI of 0.832, under 0.02 its HDI, which previous report said 0.825 and this 0.830 does not mean that it went up, please Look at the source, the historical HDI is recalculated in each report, not just the last one. Before correcting, look at sources. Although the last report said for 2017 0.825, this year it was recalculated according to the new criteria and for that same date it had 0.832, just look at the source.

Change in score on the Human Development Index from 2017 to 2018 (based on 2017 and 2018 data, published in 2019).
  + .010
  + .007
  + .006
  + .005
  + .004
  + .003
  + .002
  + .001
  No change
  No data
  - .001
  - .002
  + .001

--WikiJuan (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Well all articles use "http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf" as the source for the 2017 HDI values and it states 0.825 for Argentina. Since this year's (2018) value is 0.830, it should be shown as an increase in the infobox. --Ikon21 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

It says Messi won 5 times, it has 6 Balon d'Or-s now 5.2.196.16 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Checked sources and you are correct. Updated. -- Alexf(talk) 15:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Welsh

Welsh is a very minor language within Argentina and does not need to go at the top of the infobox. It status as a recognised regional language is not clear. The reference is in Spanish and should be properly translated. Meouw's other recent edits are a mix of standard edits and OR. Please discuss here before adding more detail. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Welsh is recognized in Chubut, and it is a minor language, located in a small area of the province, so it should not be at the top of the article. Maybe in the Chubut Province article. -- Alexf(talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree it should not be in the top of the page, but the Infobox says recognized regional languages and Welsh is one. Many languages are spoken in a region or country, especially in a diverse country like Argentina, but only a few are officially recognized for a variety of reasons, not necessarily number of speakers (I'd say the opposite is true). In this case, the language is a fundamental part of the identity and culture of the Chubut Province, as many cities, towns, regions and historical figures are named in Welsh. Since this is an article for a non-English speaking country, you'll have to make do with translated sources. The source I cited is a bill from the Argentine Congress and although it is a PDF file it can easily be translated using Google Translate whether in the website or using the context menu in Chrome. --MewMeowth (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In answer to user:MewMeowth, I realise foreign sources for an Article like this are inevitable, but this [4] still applies. The onus is on you to supply a translation if your source is questioned, which it is. Google translate won't work on that source and even if it did it would be far from an ideal translation. See [5] - only use foreign names when there is a good justified reason, otherwise use English in this English wiki. Argentina is the very widely accepted English name for that country. Alternatively, use the ibx template [6] and insert the Spanish name (if really needed seeing as it is the same). The infobox is not the place for a list of foreign names, even if some of those languages are spoken in that country. The Welsh name does not even come close to being used. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Added English translation as per WP:NOENG. --MewMeowth (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MewMuowth for the translation. The cit does not show there is official status of Welsh in Chubut (and I am not sure it 'recognises' Welsh in Chubut either) - it mearly shows that support for the teaching and development of Welsh is given: not quite the same thing. The citation should be used elsewhere if you still want to keep it.From a quick glance at Languages of Argentina, and although a wiki page there is enough there to indicate what is happening - the govt is keen to acknowledge and promote the many cultures that make up the country, not unlike many other immigrant/native population countries. Staying with that wiki page you will see 1.5 million Italian speaking Argentinians and well down the list we get 5,000 L2 Welsh speakers. Now if Italian is excluded from the infobox then Welsh sure has to be. You are pushing an agenda which I think should not be happening. If you want to mention Welsh, do it in the body of the article or the Patagonian Welsh article, but keep it in proportion with all the other languages of Argentina, the ones that are native to the country or that are spoken as L1 languages in the homes of a noticeably large percentage of Argentinians. The Welsh story is an interesting one and there is a lot that could be done on various wiki pages to improve the story of what has happened without giving it undue weight in this Argentina article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mocovi, listed in the Infobox as well, also has 5,000 speakers. Again, it is not about the number of speakers (whether native or not) but its status as recognized regional language. I do not think Italian or English should be listed there. The cite is fairly sufficient proof as to what constitutes an official recognition - a bill supporting teaching and development of the language coming from none other than the Argentine Congress. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

ARG orthographic (+all claims).svg

Argentina + all claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:475:8209:3005:BCC4:354D:3683 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Argentina's official language is Castillian (Spanish)

Infobox says "Official languages None" while it is Spanish or Castilian (normally called by the latter name). It can be seen in the Spanish article. I request someone to modify it.

--191.83.170.122 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything, anywhere, that confirms that confirms this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The Spanish version of the Argentinian government website says the official language is Spanish. This directly translated from the word "español" vs "castellano" which would mean Castillian. While it may not be official in any government document, it may be ok to reference it as "de facto" as the Spanish version of the article has determined. -https://www.argentina.gob.ar/pais -- KingFit

Buenos Aires Herald listed as one of the nation's newspapers. It closed in 2017.

Under the communications section, the Buenos Aires Herald is listed as a newspaper representing the country's top news sources. The sentence leaves out the fact that the newspaper ended its 140-year history in 2017. Gbgb007 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Gabriela Berinstein Gbgb007

...Go ahead and remove it? Besides, that statement wasn't even true in the first place. ("One of the country's top news sources"? Hardly.) --MewMeowth (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The entry must distinguish between area and number of Spanish speakers

The present entry reads "and the largest Spanish-speaking nation," which even includes a link to the list of Spanish-speaking nations by size of population. Yet the previous except refers to area and could be misconstrued. A reader might understand that Argentina has the largest Spanish-speaking population, which it clearly does not. I suggest that the entry be modified to "and the largest Spanish-speaking nation in terms of area".

I agree KingFit (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

The very first paragraph of the lead section is quite cluttered. Moreover, the whole lead doesn't specify basics (e.g. developing country status, HDI rank, and where is POPULATION in the introductory paragraph?) and I don't see how saying that 62.5% of the population has full or partial Italian ancestry is more important than HDI rank or valuable country stats in relation to social and economic aspects. The last paragraph states the second highest HDI in Latin America...so where's the world rank in the lead? Moreover, redundant translations such as "the federal capital (Spanish: Capital Federal)" are comic and highlight unprofessionalism. It would also be helpful if the first paragraph had a link directly to the provinces of Argentina and not a link to "What is a province" article. I tried to restore it and improve it, however, I was met with a dissatisfaction from one user. MewMeowth could you state what was wrong with the edit in your opinion, and how it was fine before? All I'm doing is trying to improve articles and create clarity. Thanks. Oliszydlowski (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit includes the arbitrary removal of '[culminating in the country's reorganization as a federation] of provinces with Buenos Aires as its capital city.' Secondly, you can't claim 'the [sic] Argentinians have strong connections' to Italian culture. The previous text was precise in that it says it's Argentine culture what has a significant connection to Italy -- in terms of food, language and so on; not Argentines. Big difference. In any case the cite is not working (for me, at least). I agree with the rest but I don't agree with making huge single edits especially on high importance articles and especially in the lead section. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
What you mentioned can stay I agree, however, the information stats should be included. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, it is a bit difficult to follow your discussion. Could you please discuss and edit only a thing at the time? Then we can precisely pin down what we agree and what we don't.
Don Ema Valecirro (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

MewMeowth harassment?

Before I take this further, I will refer this problem to the talk page. I have had some of my edits over the last few months reverted by MewMeowth for what I believe are questionable reasons. S/he is assuming, based on her edit summary remarks, that I have an anti-Argentine bias which underlies all my edits. This is surprising and is not backed by the facts. There is an enormous difference between changing detail because it needs improving (with reasons and if, relevant, with sources given) and changing detail just because you do not like it or you want to insert false information. I will take today's edits in the foreign relations sub-section as an example. I did two things, both explained. First, I removed pointless words. To say that foreign policy is officially handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is tautological. The word official adds nothing because it is embedded in the sentence by mention of a govt department. Which state ministry of foreign affairs conducts foreign policy that is not official? Use of the word official rolls off the tongue neatly though (as a tautological buzzword) and creates a meaningless air of importance that is not required and adds nothing to the meaning. We should all be on our guard against this casual use of language in this encyclopedia. Similar reasoning applies to 'A(n) historical and current middle power'. A clumsy phrase whose meaning is not precise: we are reminded to avoid words like current, for good reason. Argentina is a middle power: what does the description add except unnecessary ambiguity? Second, I removed an unreliable source that back a fairly specific claim that sounds more like something from a guidebook promoting tourism in Argentina. It lacked proper verification but its death knell came from its own disclaimer telling us not to take what it said seriously. I credit MM for not going as far as reverting that too: he may have felt that that would have been a step too far. We are left though, with an uncited sentence extolling the virtues of Argentina's foreign policy, all of which might be correct but grand claims require grand sources, which would apply to any article, not just this one. I left the uncited sentence there for the time being to see if anyone could find a new reference to back it. There have been other questionable reverts in the past, such as the infobox map of Argentina, which contravenes the spirit and intent of the template. I am accused of having a Falklands related bias. That at least raised a smile. If it means I have edited Falklands related articles many times, that is correct. How many editors do not have favourite areas of interest? If it means I make a one topic contribution to WP, that is self-evidently wrong. If it means I take a non-neutral path to promote the Falklands' position in the ongoing dispute, then that is where my smile turns into scorn. For a long time I have raised the ire of of some editors of Falklands related articles by taking what some assume to be a pro-Argentine stance. This usually occurs when I try to undo what I see as blatantly uncited pro-UK personal opinion in those articles - and believe me, there is a lot of it. However, I attempt to do the same in any article which has non-neutral original research in it. Any editor here should be doing the same as me! Finally, I note MM's failure to engage in any talk page discussion on this and other earlier reverts s/he has done. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe you're having a breakdown over 3 words, but regardless, I'll try my best at a response. I don't agree with the removal of the word official since it could now be implied that foreign policy is carried out discretionarily. The words 'historical and current' are necessary in accordance to the two cites referred to in that sentence. In both cases, your removals mean that useful information was taken out of the article, contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I did not undo the remaining changes from your edit not because I thought it was 'too far' but because I agreed with those removals. I don't think you should take matters so personally, but since you seem to have a vested interest in certain Argentine topics where we'll continue to have disagreements may I remind you of the administrators' noticeboard where you can voice your 'harassment' concerns. In the meantime I'll keep editing WP, protecting useful content from disruptive and biased edits. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I prefer actual fact rather than implied fact. Anything could imply anything and if we followed that line we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. By default government foreign policy is official. A qualification, like 'unofficial' would only be added on the rare occasions when it were needed. I have added some extra detail to the article which is now referenced, unlike what was there before (and is still there). It clarifies what was there.

RIDICULOUS SAYING 65% ITALIAN That is ridiculous. 1st. Because there are not 30 million Argentines with Italian nationality, and there are not 30 million Argentines who can speak Italian language. Even if 30 million Argentines have at least one Italian ancestor, they also have Spanish, Native, French, German, Ukrainian, Jewish, Arab...ancestors. So, they are not "Italian". In fact, most of those 30 million speak Spanish and have Spanish names, so the article could say 90% SPANISH.--88.3.143.151 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section - disputed claims

Hello chaps, I am seeking to amend the sentence in our lead section's first paragraph here which sets out Argentina's claims to British soil. The reason I am bringing this to attention is because it is my belief that on Wikipedia we often aim to provide readers with facts on the assumption that the reader is unfamiliar with what they are researching. With this in mind, I put forward to you the current sentence:

"Argentina claims sovereignty over part of Antarctica, the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands."

This sentence is by no means false, but it is not providing readers with the whole truth. Yes, the links lead to Wiki pages on the territorial disputes, but I propose that the phrase does not provide sufficient information regarding the status of these territories; rather, it seems to portray them as mere territories under Argentine jurisdiction. If we are to postulate that one ought to be able to read a Wikipedia page with as little jumping to other pages as possible, we ought to provide further clarity on this sentence. The second and third territories are not only recognised by the UN as British Overseas Territories but have also had this profusely supported by its 'indigenous' people through referendum. Not to mention, a certain war in 1982 ought to have settled any dispute decisively, were it not for perseverance of Argentine political pressure today. The British-descended dwellers have inhabited the islands for nearly 200 years and spanning ~9 generations, more than enough time to justify their entitlement to be heard. I digress, however. I therefore propose we amend the sentence to establish firstly its legitimate Antarctic claim, and then specify the dispute and also the islands themselves through links:

"Argentina has an Antarctic claim and contests the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands."

This sentence reads in proper English and informs readers that, whilst the territories of the Falklands and South Georgia are not internationally recognised as Argentine territories (fact), the country still claims sovereignty over them.

The matter is of great importance to myself and colleagues as the sovereignty of these islanders is relentlessly at stake. As Wikipedia users we have a duty to present facts in their entirety and not allow for misrepresentation of them, particularly in a leading paragraph. I look forward to hearing from you all.

Kind regards,

UnknownBrick22 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
  • "it seems to portray them as mere territories under Argentine jurisdiction"
    • I don't see where this is implied in the sentence in question.
  • "The second and third territories are not only recognised by the UN as British Overseas Territories..."
    • This is not how the UN works. As a rule, the UN goes to great effort to avoid recognising anything as anything.
  • "...but have also had this profusely supported by its 'indigenous' people through referendum"
    • Well, one of those territories doesn't have any permanent population, indigenous or otherwise, so that doesn't make sense.
  • "Not to mention, a certain war in 1982 ought to have settled any dispute decisively, were it not for perseverance of Argentine political pressure today. The British-descended dwellers have inhabited the islands for nearly 200 years and spanning ~9 generations, more than enough time to justify their entitlement to be heard"
    • The dispute exists, whether you like it or not. We describe debates. We do not engage in them.
  • "its legitimate Antarctic claim"
    • On what basis do you say that Argentina's Antarctic claim is any more legitimate than the British and Chilean claims to the same areas?
  • "This sentence reads in proper English and informs readers that, whilst the territories of the Falklands and South Georgia are not internationally recognised as Argentine territories (fact), the country still claims sovereignty over them."
    • So does the status quo - or rather, the status quo makes no comment at all on international recognition of the claims. The status quo is also shorter and does not try and draw a false distinction between the Antarctic claim and the other claims.
  • "The matter is of great importance to myself and colleagues as the sovereignty of these islanders is relentlessly at stake."
    • It may be - though it's not for us to judge whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
What's important to Wikipedia is that we describe these things accurately and neutrally. The proposed text is no improvement and the arguments for it are spurious. Kahastok talk 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because it was bad English. I did not amend the English slightly to make it good English because I could not see how what you were changing made any real difference to what was there. "Argentina claims sovereignty over part of Antarctica, the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.", the original sentence, is clear enough. We could perhaps tweak it a little but that would not really add anything of substance. I am not sure what exactly it is that you think needs changing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

- - -

Okay, I take on-board the case for maintaining neutrality in our portrayal of the debate, supposedly negating the need to specify further the territorial statuses in the lead paragraph. I do however wish to address some of your comments-in-response which I find not only to be of needlessly cavalier attitude but also warranting reply:

  • "This is not how the UN works. As a rule, the UN goes to great effort to avoid recognising anything as anything."
    • The UN Decolonization Committee today identifies 17 territories under the C-24 list of its Charter, under the classification of 'Non-Self-Governing Territories'.[1] The UN has indeed sought to establish its administering countries and the status within their parent nations, but if you want to argue about semantics then perhaps I ought to have used earlier the word 'listed' rather than 'recognised'.
  • "Well, one of those territories doesn't have any permanent population, indigenous or otherwise, so that doesn't make sense."
    • Yes but I feel that to be a deliberate over-complication, given that it is making reference to the Falklands referendum of 2013 and not to the SGASSI which is notably uninhabited permanently. The inverted commas on 'indigenous' were using the term lightly however further clarity will be used going forward.
  • "On what basis do you say that Argentina's Antarctic claim is any more legitimate than the British and Chilean claims to the same areas?"
    • By virtue of the condominium status of Antarctica ratified in 1961 and established prior to settlement by all signatories of its Treaty, in contrast with the pre-established status of the Falklands and SGASSI, the Falklands in 1833 (followed by permanent settlement) and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in 1775 and 1908 respectively, incidentally prior to Argentina's claims in 1927 and 1938. The international status and legislative operation of Antarctica is evidently different to other territories, which also gives light to your following comment of a 'false distinction' between the claims.

In answer to Roger 8 Roger's comment on "what exactly it is that [I] think needs changing", I am seeking to amend the sentence because in its essence as it is now, it fails to provide the reader with the contentiousness of Argentina's claims (which I put to you as 'contentious' in light of aforementioned evidence to suggest Argentina is at odds with international law in its pursuit of claiming), and simply states the claims as if there were no debate to it. I accept that the links provided will lead to the sovereignty disputes, but as I said before, it ought to be clarified on the main page preventing the reader from having to sidetrack. So, in summary, I am simply hoping to ascertain whether we might work collaboratively to clarify and finesse the sentence, but if most see no reason to amend this sentence for the better then I will accept this also.

UnknownBrick22 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not responding point by point. Basically, you're confusing opinions with facts, and you're arguing a side in the dispute.
The point the article makes is not in any way way contentious. It is a matter of fact, widely accepted and easily verifiable, that Argentina claims these territories. The merit of the claims is a matter of opinion,. Wikipedia cannot rule on that either way, and this is not the place to expound on it. That's why we link to the articles on the disputes.
Having said I will not respond point-by-point, I will note that you've completely misunderstood the Antarctic Treaty. Antarctica is not a condominium and never has been. Argentina, Chile and the UK each claim to be the sole legal sovereign over their claimed sector of Antarctica (each of which includes the Antarctic Peninsula), and the sorts of arguments they make are similar to those made in the case of the SGSSI. Kahastok talk 18:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're right then you might wanna change the lead section of Antarctica buddy because it claims it "a de facto condominium, governed by parties to the Antarctic Treaty System that have consulting status". The Treaty set about establishing, among other things, that Antarctica be usable for peaceful purpose and scientific research, and to ensure this the sovereignty of the continent was deemed condominium. Article IV.2 of the Treaty expressly forbids 'legal sovereign' claims as you put it, so the UK, Chile and Argentina do not claim sovereignty through legal de jure means because that would go against the Treaty for which they are signatories. The continent's condominium status was ratified in 1961. Forgive me but we seem to be contradicting Wikipedia pages. (For the record my lad, your demeanour is rather patronising for my presenting of a case for cordial resolution.) UnknownBrick22 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with contradicting Wikipedia pages if the Wikipedia pages are wrong. Remember that Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources.
Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty begins:

"1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: (a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica"

That could not be more explicit. Argentina, Chile and the UK did not renounce their claims by signing the Antarctic Treaty, and there is nothing in the treaty that forbids them from maintaining those claims. The claims that these three countries maintained in 1961 are maintained to this day. Kahastok talk 18:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


Unresolved footnotes

I notice this article has two undefined footnotes. It references "Miller 2004", but there are no materials attributed Miller in the bibliography. There's also "Arbena 1999", but Arbena has two entries in the bibliography ... both dated 2002.

Are these references repairable, or should they be replaced with {{fact}} tags? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

2A01:73C0:503:B1B:0:0:3CBA:8556 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, edit requested, introductory statement

It is not well understood why it is mentioned here that Argentina is a developing country when Chile does not have that mention in the introductory paragraphs. Both are developing countries, both have similar development levels (Chile a little higher in HDI, Argentina a little higher in the adjusted iHDI). It gives the wrong impression when navigating from a page to the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.225.221.3 (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Official language

WikiJuan, your referenced edit today was reverted. Why do you think that happened, and do you agree with the action taken? Official languages often cause disputes, so this is not perculiar to the Argentina article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Spanish is the de facto official language of Argentina even though it doesn't have a de jure status. Mentioning official language as Spanish with de facto written in the bracket is the best option as seen in my edit which was reverted. Don't see any need for a second section of national language in the infobox. Bundestag1 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Spanish is the de facto official language of Argentina even though it doesn't have a de jure status. Mentioning official language as Spanish with de facto written in the bracket is the best option as seen in my edit which was reverted. Don't see any need for a second section of national language in the infobox. Bundestag1 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between official and national languages in the infobox template, so here it is as per Template:Infobox_country:
|official_languages = <!--Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc-->
|national_languages = <!--Country/territory-wide languages recognised but not necessarily in country/territory-wide law, etc-->
|regional_languages = <!--Languages recognised or associated with particular regions within the country/territory-->
See? Clear as day. Official language is for a language that is recognised as such in legislation country-wide, and there is none in Argentina's case. Instead, Argentina does have a national language and that is Spanish. "De facto official" is an oxymoron and it does not make any sense. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have slowly begun to change my opinion about what is an official language over time and in different articles. I began by holding a similar view to Bunderstag1 (is that name allowed?), but am drifting the other way slowly. The template guidelines though are fairly clear and they avoid many problems. I do not think a national language has any negative tones so those thinking 'official' gives a language greater kudos may need to think again. Incidentally, I may be wrong but the template guidelines appear to have been updated and clarified in the not too distant past. I recall that there used to be ambiguity about this. Without the new guidelines the word 'official' can be applied in a de jure and a de facto situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! Take the example of Tanzania article. English and Swahili are the de facto official languages (used by the government but no mention in the constitution). Meanwhile Swahili is the sole national language as written in the constitution. Claiming that Argentina has no official language is just creating confusion for the reader. An official language is more than just mention in the constitution i.e., de jure status.Bundestag1 (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A problem is that 'national language' is also open to different interpretations, which makes the guidelines less unambiguous that they might seem to be. For example, Welsh would be considered the national language of Wales, with 20% speaking it and all those being bilingual. Doesn't English have a far greater claim to be called the 'national language' of Wales? Compounding the matter is that Welsh also has de jure status in Wales, whereas English does not. Therefore, why in the Wales article don't we have Welsh as the national and official language? (This relates to this debate even if it appears slightly off topic - Welsh was merely illustrating the point.) What would happen if someone stood up in the Argentine parliament and began speaking in French, or Japanese? If the is no official language, why shouldn't they do that? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That's why mentioning de facto in the bracket clears things up. You can see my edit which was reverted! I think you and I are on the same page here. By the way I am Bundestag1. Just got my name changed. Regards.Epiphyta (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your replies otherwise it's not clear what user you are responding to. You have clearly not addressed any of my arguments and you keep repeating yourself. Once again, de facto means unofficially: 
De facto is Latin for "of fact," meaning "in reality," and it's usually contrasted with "de jure," which means "of law," or "officially."

De facto: ACTUAL, esp. being such in effect though not formally recognized
Bringing up Tanzania's article is inconsequential. United States, arguably the most visited article for a country in the English Wikipedia has had a long established consensus regarding this very topic as that country (a federal constitutional republic just like Argentina) also lacks a federally designated official language. The footnote on both articles is quite clear on why there is no official language as such. I don't think anyone would infer that lacking an official language means that members of their legislative bodies would suddenly start speaking in random languages just because they can. --MewMeowth (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The word official does not necessarily refer directly to something in place due to legislation or to a formal obligation in a written document such as a constitution of a business contract. It can be looser than that and apply to a perceived position of authority or importance. That is why the UK article has English as the official language. English could therefore be described as a de facto official language, which I think is the point being made here by Epiphysta. This means we have two words, official and national, that are ambiguous. The template does define what both mean, but because that definition differs from the dictary definition and from common usage problems arise. I think the solution lies in improving the template otherwise this sort of discussion will keep recurring in many wiki articles. The full template description for languages is below. The bottom section does seem to allow for specific definitions in ambiguous cases but it is far from ideal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
|official_languages = <!--Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc-->
|national_languages = <!--Country/territory-wide languages recognised but not necessarily in country/territory-wide law, etc-->
|regional_languages = <!--Languages recognised or associated with particular regions within the country/territory-->
|languages_type =     <!--Use to specify a further type of language, if not official, national or regional-->
|languages =          <!--Languages of the further type-->
|languages_sub =      <!--Is this further type of language a sub-item of the previous non-sub type? ("yes" or "no")-->
|languages2_type =    <!--Another further type of language-->
|languages2 =         <!--Languages of this second further type-->
|languages2_sub =     <!--Is the second alternative type of languages a sub-item of the previousnon-sub type? ("yes" or "no")-->

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Argentina is not the largest Spanish speaking country in the world. Mexico is (and possibly Spain depending on the numbers used) 136.35.250.106 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article is talking about the amount of land. Argentina is the largest Spanish-speaking country in terms of land. The article would say "most populous" if it was to do with population. Regards, --Ferien (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Linkifying

"country" in the first few sentences is not hyperlinked to the Wikipedia entry for country — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirTreeMan (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done per MOS:OVERLINK. Melmann 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Change of "High-income country" category

In the Economy section, it says that Argentina is considered a high-income country, but it was until 2017, nowadays its not longer a high-income country but a middle-income one. You can check it in the World Bank page that is linked there. 2800:810:42A:D8D:E429:88B0:113E:19CB (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The name "Argentina"

The name isn't clearly Italian but it comes both from the latin "Argentium" and the Greek "Argyros" which means "Silver". Please check it out. 188.73.250.151 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement regarding grammatical gender is incorrect.

"In Spanish, "Argentina" is feminine ("La [República] Argentina"), taking the feminine article "la", as the initial syllable of "Argentina" is unstressed.[40]"

The statement above is not accurate, the appropriate correction is removal.

Argentina is a proper noun and thus does not take an article. "La Argentina" is not a grammatically correct phrase and or used in a vernacular context. Feminine and masculine characteristics do not apply to proper nouns in any proper grammatical context, with the exception of names composed of common nouns, like "Los Estados Unidos" or "La Casa Rosada".

The article "La" in "La republica Argentina" refers to the word "republica", and would be used if we swap "Argentina" for any other country ("Los Estados Unidos" but "La Republica Estadounidense"). Likewise, if we use a masculine noun instead of "Republica", it changes the article ("El Pueblo Argentino"). The word "Argentina" in "La Republica Argentina" is actually an adjective in this phrase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago Elustondo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the above notwithstanding, I didn't see why the article was suddenly digressing into an exposition on Spanish grammar, so I've removed that paragraph. However, as long as we're on the subject, you seem to be quite mistaken about the use of the article with the name of the country when used as a noun, given the enormous number of works in Spanish that Google comes up with, even since 2003, that refer to the country as "la Argentina". Also see item 5 in this article from the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas by the Real Academia Española: "Muchos nombres de países, y el de algunos continentes, pueden emplearse con o sin artículo, como es el caso de (el) Afganistán, (el) África, (la) Argentina, (el) Asia, (el) Brasil, ..." [emphasis mine]. (Translation: "Many country names, and those of some continents, can be used with or without the article, as in the case of ...".) Largoplazo (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Argentina has 3 oficial names

Art 35 of the National Constitution, states that Argentina has three names: - Argentine Republic - Argentine Confederacy - United Provinces of the Río de la Plata 190.16.237.230 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That appears to be (nearly) correct: "ARTÍCULO 35.- Las denominaciones adoptadas sucesivamente desde 1810 hasta el presente, a saber: Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata; República Argentina, Confederación Argentina, serán en adelante nombres oficiales indistintamente para la designación del gobierno y territorio de las provincias, empleándose las palabras "Nación Argentina" en la formación y sanción de las leyes."[7] In English (from a translated version of the constitution): "Section 35.- The denominations successively adopted from 1810 up to the present, namely: "United Provinces of the River Plate"; "Argentine Republic"; "Argentine Confederation", shall henceforth be official names to be indistinctly used for the designation of the government and territory of the provinces, the words "Argentine Nation" being used in the making and enactment of laws."[8][9], So "Confederation" rather than "Confederacy" and "River Plate" rather than "Río de la Plata". Largoplazo (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

Through Law 27589 decreed in 2020, 24 Alternate Federal Capitals are established in Argentina, which constitutes the country consolidating with a total of 25 Federal Capitals. Among them, the main administrative and autonomous Federal Capital, which is the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, plus 24 Alternate Federal Capitals, one of which represents the Metropolitan Area of ​​Buenos Aires (AMBA) and each of the remaining 23 is located in a different province on behalf of the same. In the 24 Alternate Federal Capitals, the industrial offices of the province are established in representation, where the negotiations in question are carried out. In addition, as part of the conditions established by law, the government must move to one of the Alternate Federal Capitals each month.

The 25 Federal Capitals are:

• CIUDAD AUTÓNOMA DE BUENOS AIRES • SAN JUSTO, District of La Matanza, Province of Buenos Aires (AMBA) • MAR DEL PLATA, District of General Pueyrredón, Province of Buenos Aires • ROSARIO, Rosario Department, Santa Fe Province • CIUDAD DE LA CONCEPCIÓN DEL RÍO CUARTO, Río Cuarto Department, Córdoba Province • GENERAL PICO, Department of Maracó, Province of La Pampa • CUTRAL CÓ, Confluencia Department, Neuquén Province • SAN CARLOS DE BARILOCHE, Bariloche Department, Río Negro Province • COMODORO RIVADAVIA, Escalante Department, Chubut Province • CALETA OLIVIA, Department Deseado, Province of Santa Cruz • RÍO GRANDE, Río Grande Department, Tierra Del Fuego, Antártida e Islas Del Atlántico Sur Province • SAN ANTONIO DE PADUA DE LA CONCORDIA, Concordia Department, Entre Ríos Province • GOYA, Goya Department, Corrientes Province • OBERÁ, Oberá Department, Misiones Province • PRESIDENCIA ROQUE SÁENZ PEÑA, Comandante Fernández Department, Chaco Province • FORMOSA, Formosa Department, Formosa Province (it is also the provincial capital) • SAN LUIS, Juan Martín De Pueyrredón Department, San Luis Province (it is also the provincial capital) • CAUCETE, Caucete Department, San Juan Province • CHILECITO, Chilecito Department, La Rioja Province • TINOGASTA, Tinogasta Department, Catamarca Province • LA BANDA, Banda Department, Santiago Del Estero Province • MONTEROS, Monteros Department, Tucumán Province • SAN PEDRO DE JUJUY, San Pedro Department, Jujuy Province • SAN RAMÓN DE LA NUEVA ORAN, Orán Department, Salta Province EditorAustral (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Argentina has a single capital, Buenos Aires, and despite the misleading wording this new law does not change that. Those "alternate capitals" are not capitals in the legal sense of the word, they are simply places where the cabinet have their meetings for a day. To truly shift Argentina into a country with several capitals would be a huge legal nightmare, it would require dozens of laws at both the national and provincial levels, and perhaps even a constitutional amendment. It won't be done with just this tiny law of ten articles. I'm not even sure if such a thing even exist anywhere in the world. Cambalachero (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

176.78.152.136 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

| 96.7% White or Mestizo[a] | 2.4% Amerindian | 0.5% East Asian | 0.4% African

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

87.196.73.123 (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The ethnic groups are not correct :

Latinobarometro[7] 56% Whites 28% Mestizos 5% Amerindians 3% Blacks 1% Mulattoes 1% Asians 7% Other race

Please change to : 96.7% Whites and Mestizos 2% Amerindians 0.4% Asians 0.3% Blacks 0.4% Others

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

Change "Uruguay to the south" to "Uruguay to the east". 101.0.35.156 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, the text does not say that Uruguay is to the south. It says that Argentina limits with "Uruguay and the South Atlantic Ocean to the east", which is correct. Cambalachero (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Racist terminology of "Mestizo" should be removed. Further genetic studies lack basal Native American DNA, skewing outcomes to be VERY non-representative of Indigenous heritage. Mestizo in this context is like "M@llato" and is not to be used except in specific historical contexts. Correction to Indigenous Latino (and further derivation of European to separate category). Removal of inaccurate race based demographic section would also be advisable if not corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:C302:43D0:6163:F264:8ABA:FE23 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference 251 has outdated information and a broken link. The dataset it refers to and up to date information can be found at the following link: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=ARGENTINA&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=ElecGenByFuel

I appreciate it if someone with access could make the edits necessary! EnergyAnalyst2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

Change "GDP_nominal = Increase $630.700 billion[2]" to "GDP_nominal = Increase $483.765 billion[2] "

the previous gdp amount was not as same as the source 45.248.151.63 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

request edit to bad grammar GDP table

"63th"????? RT (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic group section.

For now, I have removed the ethnicity section in the infobox page. It makes no sense to keep it up if no official and recent Argentine government censuses have given an in-depth breakdown of ethnicity/race or skin colour or whatever. Furthermore, MOS:INFOBOX states: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

It seems like the ethnic stats before I removed them, which claim that Argentina is "92.1% White or Mestizo" are original research.[10] There are two sources provided in the note, one from the CIA Factbook[11] and the image screenshot of a Latinobarometro survey.[12] The CIA F.B source states that 97.2% of the country is either European or Mestizo. And the latter survey source states that 56% of Argentines identify as "White", and another 27.6% identify as being "Mestizo". Add it up and you get just 83.6%. So, where is this alleged 92.1% "White or Mestizo" coming from? And is a survey done by some organization, which only asked a handful of Argentines what they identify as really "trustworthy" as a source? Is the CIA Factbook even a WP:RS either? It claims to get its information from a "2010 est.", but does not cite where this 2010 estimate actually came from.

Look at how arbitrary racial/ethnic/skin colour labels truly are (see how the U.S definition of "Asian" omits West Asians, while the Canadian definition doesn't. Or how Brazil officially uses the term "Yellow" or Amarela as a skin colour descriptor for Yellow East Asians while other Asian ethnic groups were not included, and this is considered "offensive" in countries like the U.S). You can find tons of sources that will likely give vastly different percentages of what the alleged "White" or Euro-Argentine population is. And this could vary every year or which part of the country is being studied/surveyed.

Discussion for other countries like Canada, as well as the pages for countries like Australia and Japan all seem to have agreed on omitting the ethnic section (and in some cases, religion as well) in the country infoboxes. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

2 world cup wins to 3 Redbackben (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt#_edn3
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference imf2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentina/Archive_10&oldid=1155404943"