Talk:Argentina/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Ethnicity

I am sick and tired of those who constantly correct the paragraphs on Argentina's demographics to state that Argentina is a completely white country. Are they daltonic or what? Can't they see that in northern provinces there is a vast majority of people who are, directly or indirectly, of indian descent? Where the hell did they get that piece of info that Argentina is 97% white? May be those who wrote the World Fact Book just paid a short visit to Buenos Aires, looked around, asked a few questions and got the usual "Have you realised that Buenos Aires looks like Paris? Don't you think Argentine women are the most beautiful?" comments. But why doesn't it surprise me at all? Not recognizing that Argentina is a multicultural country is very typical of porteños.

Marcelo

Salta

I'd say some of us are also getting sick and tired of being attacked by your unconstructive, aggressive comments. As you may have seen (or not), we've been discussing this particular problem. I don't like the CIA WF but they must have used some method to get to that 97% figure. Buenos Aires + Capital + Córdoba + Santa Fe are mostly "European" and 2/3 of Argentina lives there.

I suggest that you calm down and contribute instead of accusing. Up to this point this has been a content dispute. That's fine. If you continue to push your POV into the article without serious discussion, or just using insults, it will become vandalism, and treated as such. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah your arugments are very much flawed. All of the CIA world fact book information is VERY creditable. I agree with Pablo-Flores I am also sick and tired of being attacked by your unhelpful incorrect information The Northern Provinces are also still mostly European also So calm down. Stop trying to put your POV across and insulting other users. (DJBenny 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

The parameters of the CIA World Book published after the year 2000 relating to Argentina's population were changed to deem all Argentines as White, including native mestizos (ie. those who are and always have been Argentines, and are not mestizo immigrants or their descendants). The CIA today only considers the foreign mestizo population in Argentina as mestizo, bringing mestizos down to 2%. 1% is said to be Amerindian, and together they are supposedly the "3% non-Whites".

"The Northern Provinces are also still mostly European also"? You must be kiding. Right? This is beyond a joke. To what lengths will you go? As the user said, go to Salta, go to Jujuy, go to Santiago del Estero, go to Corrientes, and many other provinces and the most common faces are those of mestizos. Buenos Aires is NOT representative of all Argentina. The mestizo element (I mean phenotypically mestizo, not just genetically) in the Argentine interior is the most predominant element, which is only THEN followed by whites (whether pure or perhaps merely phenotypically white), and to a much lesser degree Amerindians. These regions together may only hold 35% of the country's total population, but that is no small proportion. I will concede, however, that when I say that these regions are majority mestizo, I mean majority in the sense of anything over 50% (could be be 90%, could be 80%, or 60%, or just over the 50%) and the whites, depending on which area of the Argentina interior, may themselves go to close to 50%.

Statistic from Argentine institutions have never stated, and still don't state (other than those that merely regurgetate CIA stats), anything less than 15% as native Argentine (ie. not immigrant or descendants) mestizos. This 15% mestizo is what the CIA also cited until a few years ago, after which they decided on their own that the parameters would change.

Ethnic groups: European 85%, mostly of Spanish and Italian descent. Mestizo, Amerindian or other nonwhite groups 15%. (source: CIA)

Ethnic groups: European 97%, mostly of Spanish and Italian descent; Mestizo, Amerindian or other nonwhite groups 3% (source: CIA)

Given the fact that a simple visit to the country would easily prove that mestizos easily surpass 15%, I think it is just a grotesc and distorted POV to quote an obviously erred source which has taken upon itself to fabricate the figure of 97% based on parameters that it saw fit to apply for whatever reason.

Also, we already know that genetic findings of the University of Buenos Aires have shown that the majority of the population also has some degree of admixture, even it for the majority of these those markers do not manifest phenotypically. I see that the findings have been removed from the article, yet again, with one users argument that the findings are flawed. The user based his argument on questioning the uniqueness of the markers used as indicators of Amerindian descent. With the aid of one website which I will discredit in the following paragraphs, the user argued that the markers used were not unique to Amerindian and were found in Southern European populations (a population that represents most of the European element in Argnetina).

I don't know if the user is aware, but Haplogroup Q3 is indeed unique to the Americas, not found even in North Asia (from where the first Americans entered the New World), and much less Europe, or Southern Europe as he specified. I'm surprised the lengths people will go to deny the Amerindian heritage of Argentina. The mutation ocured in the New World, and is present by almost every indigenous South American, and most indigenous North Americans with the exception of the Na-Dené ethno-linguistic groups (such as Navajo) and indigenous Arctic American and Canadians (Inuit, Aleut, etc) which are relatively recent entries into the American continent (around 8,000 years ago) and posess only Eurasian markers (which are common to Asians and some Europeans).

The other markers (earlier Eurasian clusters) that are found in Amerindian populations but may also be found to a lesser degree in some Asian and European populations were not those used as he claims.

In any case, the website which authored and hosts the article where he got his boloney, is an unscientific fring Native American group which has posted deceptive and purpusfull misinterpretations in the attempt to distort genetic research on Native American. There is a reason why they do this. The mere name of the group gives their neutrality a battergin; Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB). Their aim of discrediting Native American genetic reaserch, by their use of unsupposted and scientifically discredited claims is to discourage Native Americans from being solicited or seeking genetic testing, citing an abuse of Native American genetic heritage. They state indigenous people do not need the affirmation for their identity, and they then wrote article such as the one used as a source to fasely discredit the genetic works of the world's leadingg scientists.

Noble as their mission statement may sound, "The IPCB is organized to assist indigenous peoples in the protection of their genetic resources, indigenous knowledge, cultural and human rights from the negative effects of biotechnology", if you research the site a little, you will come to learn that a large slant of the groups motives is not so much a noble fight against "biocolonialsm", but to prevent science undermining indigenous mythology and oral history of the ancient populating of lands and their calims over property, ancient remains, and all economic benefits that derive from these.

So, now I would like to once again insist that the genetic findings be reinstated in it's sumarised form as so tenuasly discussed and consensed here previously. Al-Andalus 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Andalus, can you please state which academic journal the Corach et al study is published and peer reviewed? I would be interested to read the whole study rather than a brief summary of the results in a tabloid article, thanks. --Coldheartedman 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Haplogroup Q3 is a Y chromosome which of course is only past on from the fathers side. Not of much interest when were are talking about 'mestizos' because according to Dr Corach over 85% of people with Amerindian ancestry are genetically Amerindian from their maternal side like elsewhere in Latin America. However, the fact that Argentina is overwhelmingly European in descent is something Dr Daniel Corach has scientifically validated. [1] --Coldheartedman 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Will try. Till then, the concern is also about the "97% white" figure, and the fact that it is quoted in the article at all; considering the controversy over its accuracy.

While a simple visit to the country would confirm the true proportion of mestizos and whites, not everyone is as fortunate as us to have been to Argentina and know from experience. In common everyday perceptions for those who have been or live in Argentina, and a population history which corroborates it, the true ethnic distribution of Argentina more closely resembles the earlier data given by the CIA (the one which states 85% white, 15% mestizos, amerindian and others). All estimates given by Argentine institutions (which don't merely repeat the latest CIA figure) also estimates no less than 15% mestizos. So the concern should not be with these earlier CIA figures. BTW, even those earlied CIA figures a a bit conservative (Argentines who are discernably mestizo would be closer to 18 out of every 100 argentines).

The concern in fact lies with the data that states 97% white and only 3% non-white (ie. mestizo, amerindian) because they do not coincide with common perceptions of the country's true ethnic distribution. Independant of this, the fact that the CIA's current 97% "estimate" conficts with its own ealier estimate provided only a couple of years earlier (and greatly so, 15% down to 3% is no small margin) should be reason enough to make it a questionable source that shouldn't be used, for the sake of accuracy and verifiability.

Having said all that, at the end of it, both earlier and latter CIA figures state that Argentina had a white majority. If you really don't wanna use the 85% figure (which was originally cited by the CIA, agreed by Argentine institutions, and is the figure that most cloesly comes to reflecting the reailty as percieved by actually being in Argentina) then basically all the article should say is that Argentina has a white majority, and leave it at that without a figure being given. The problem is really only the citation of 97% in the actual article. Al-Andalus 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's great the way the large Arab community, that even President Menem was a member of, is constantly deleted from the demographics section. And it is sited that figures from Islam in Argentina disputes the numbers of Arabs in Argentina. Not all Arabs are Muslims, especially the Arabs in Argentina, 70% of which are said to be Christians.

It's awesome that I took it out, actually, because unless you find a creditable source to back up what you say, it's considered Original Research and doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. Pl ease find a source or stop adding it to the article. Argentina has a "Good Article" status, let's try to keep it that way. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: And if you bothered to read the article I pointed you to, you'll see that the fact that not arabs are muslims is very clearly outlined in there. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove the 3%-15% mestizo thing the more accurate rating is the 3 precent because the northerneast provinces are lowly populated. Al-Andalus calm down too you always try to stress your points way too much and it is clear there is some sort of biast behind them. Also you are comepletly wrong about the source not being creitable, It is very creitable. This is not the article that states that the Q3 (M3) is not solely found in Native Americans research done above by others also verify the vadilitly of the Indigenous Peoples Council article. It still stands. Also the gene the Clarin.com article is talking is also mentioned in Coldheartedman source [2]. Which shows it can also be a European gene also. (24.60.174.79 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Is the One-drop theory the latest K-obsession? What cultural/legislative/healthcare importance does the exact figure from ADN studies have but a scientific one? User:Ejrrjs says What? 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty of Falklands/Anatarctic/South Sandwich ammendment to the infobox.

I have ammended the infobox to read at the bottom in reference to the Falklands Islands, an area of Antarctica, South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands "Sovereignty of this additional land is disputed. Hopefully this will clear up the situation regarding that as the previous statement was misleading, suggesting that the additional land was under direct and undisputed argentine control. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it already says in the intro. that it claims land that is calimed by Great Britain. (24.60.174.79 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

I've added it again because it was removed without good reason. You cannot simply put it in the userbox as it was, that is a highly ambigious way of wording the additional land to such an extent as to make it seem like the land is actually governed by Argentina when it isn't. Whether or not is been 'annexed' by the UK doesn't change the fact that Argentina doesn't have control over the islands at present. If that changes i'll be sure to remove that comment from the Argentina page and add it to the UK page. I will now be watching this article to ensure it sticks this time, or that there is a full and proper discussionn if people want to remove it. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures

There are entirely too many pictures at the top of this article. The introductory paragraph suffers greatly as a consequence. The number of pictures at the top needs to be pruned; either they should be removed, or moved to other places inside the article. I'll do this tomorrow, pending input from others. Carl.bunderson 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have spread the photos through the article, all broadly useful but not necessary to head the article. Mtiedemann 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that for me :) Carl.bunderson 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What if some of the images are placed on the left, instead of having a whole column of images at the right? Just to have a bit of difference throughout the article, it might give it a better look.CROWDUDE 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture matter

Hi y'all... as I said before, (↑Up there↑) I think that what would make this article a bit more 'good looking' is if we arrange some of the pictures. Most of the right side of this page is filled with images, it makes it kinda dull, there should be at least a touch of design creativity when making this sort of articles. To see exactly what im talking about check out my sandbox, isn't that just fine-looking? Oh articolo bello! Mama mia!... Alright alright, now other things that I noticed, there's a big blank space at the start of the History topic, I believe the Flag Memorial pic is causing it, doesn't looks pretty. Also if you see in 'Administrative divisions' and 'Geography' sections, the exact same map is being shown (except for the numbers), and they are practically very close together, when the reader is reading (Yes, readers read!), he'll scroll down and see the same picture, same color and division. I think that the image in 'Geography' should be changed with a satellite one, check the German version and you'll find one. And... that's about it.

You may be asking yourself... Well, why don't you do it CROWDUDE?!, the thing is, I dont dare to edit an article like this, too big and important, and if I do and then most of y'all don't like it, I'll be known as the dude that screw up the article or the dude that sticks his finger on someone else's hard work... so I'll leave it to you guys. Leave your opinions. CROWDUDE 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Your sandbox looks good, I trust you to do it right, Crow. Remember the WP adage...be bold ;) Carl.bunderson 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Carl... after watching at the 'Save Page' button for a couple of minutes, I done it!, I think I skipped the 'Be Bold' article when I signed up (like when people create emails and never read the Terms and Conditions).

I should mention, I couldn't fit anywhere the picture of the Flag Memorial, it was making that awful blank space; if someone knows where to put it, go for it. Also, I was going to use the aerial topographic image that can be found on the German version, but I don't even know how to say Hi in german, so I couldn't understand the licence tag. If someone can help with that, it will be great. Or at least get a similar one to replace the image in 'Geography' section. Cheers! CROWDUDE 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job Crow, I couldn't have done that. thnx. I'm really bad at manipulating pictures in these articles. I stick to correcting grammar and spelling. I'm such a wikignome. Carl.bunderson 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Corruption in Argentina

I've just reverted this about corruption in Argentina, which I found anecdotical, unverifiable, original research, and essentially an uncalled-for op-ed. Except for the transparency index. I guess there's a place for that, but does it belong in the main article? Is anybody up to the unfortunately huge task of writing a well-sourced, neutral article about Corruption in Argentina? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Corruption has a wide meaning, and such article would be only a collection of pieces of other articles. I think its better to have by cases information in the corresponding articles (Menem, etc.) Nevertheless, categories do exist in the Wikipedia, for instance Category:Political corruption in France, Corruption in Kenya, and Category:Political corruption in general. Mariano(t/c) 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant a place where public perceptions of corruption, important (historical or history-altering) acts of corruption, assessments of corruption by external organizations, etc. could be mentioned. Not sure it's possible, though. Some articles about corruption scandals would be nice (the labor law Senate bribes come to mind). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from language section

The following is partly useful and partly common knowledge, but I think we should have a source for some of the statements, and take care of the unencyclopedic tone. There's simply no "Porteño dialect", and I have no idea what the editor meant by "softer".

The Buenos Aires or Porteño dialect is the most recognizable of Argentine accents, but other provinces have distinct accents as well. In Santa Fé province the accent is similar to Porteño but "softer." The speech of many in Entre Rios Province is quite similar to the accent of Uruguayans. Many residents of Córdoba and San Luis provinces speak with a famous sing-song in their speech, which some find endearing while others difficult to understand. In Mendoza Province, the accent and vocabulary are a bit closer to Chilean.

—Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Urbanization

In my humble opinion this sub-section does not belong in administrative divisions section, but either under the new Population section or Demographics, since it deals with population figures and... demographics! (urbanization) I submit this observation for the administrators and others who reads this to decide. Thank you for your patience with my breach of etiquette, now that I have read the guidelines more thoroughly I'm am trying to follow them strictly. The dugout 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the Urbanization section under 'Demographics', and out of Administrative Divisions. Administrative divisions should only deal with how the country is politically divided (as in all the other country articles I saw), and not with city populations and trends in demographics. Demographics should go under demographics, and it looks better organized and nicer that way. :-) The dugout 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Music

I have been trying to streamline the section I wrote on Music (probably my strongest area of contribution along with geography and demographics), to the point where I cannot trim any further and keep the information currently there readable. I have noticed that the article on Music in Argentina could use further expansion and I am willing to contribute to it. But I have a question:

Can I just transfer some of what I wrote here under 'Music', there? (cut and paste). They are my own words, of that you can be assured. All the information there basically came off my years of study and hundreds of articles and books that I have read, and of course general 2nd hand kwowledge. So is can I just do that? Of course, I would expand upon them significantly, and have the ability to do so, once I paste to that article (it's just to help me by simply just expanding upon what I wrote, and eventually the final product would look different anyways)

By doing this I could further cut down on the size of the paragraphs in this main Argentina article. A speedy reply would really be appreciated, as I would like to undertake this ASAP, while I have the leisure time to do so. Thank you. The dugout 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! As a general rule, you don't add lots of information without a verifiable source, but that's more to avoid original research in problem areas. Unless you have some strange theories about Argentine music, I'd say it's completely OK. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lowest elevation point: Valdez Peninsula or San Julian?

For as long as I can remember I have read in argentine and international fact articles that the lowest point in Argentina is located at the Peninsula Valdes area, about 40 meters below sea level, which also is the lowest point in South America. But in the Geography of Argentina article (and the Santa Cruz Province article), it claims that the lowest point is at a location in Santa Cruz Province, -100 meters below sea level. I for one never heard of this.

I have been checking my hard copy sources and online and cannot find any independent substantiation for this, except the two wikipedia articles. This is a notice that if I cannot find any other verification, I will correct both articles and put the lowest elevation point in Argentina (and South America) as the Peninsula Valdez location.

EDIT: AMAZINGLY, at the website graphicmaps.com, the South America page indicates the lowest point as the Valdez peninsula at -105 feet or -40 meters below sea level ( http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/sa.htm ). But the Argentina page indicates the lowest point as 'Laguna del Carbo, just to the north of Puerto Santa Cruz - 344 ft. (105 m)' !!!!!!! ( http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/ar.htm ) Unbelievable!! This reminds me of that joke that goes 'Maradona was the best football player in the world, and in Argentina he was among the top 10'.... LMAO.

It would appear we have a minor mystery developing... Obviously they both cannot be correct, and it's amazing this website has not caugtht this contradiction.

Every single other source is saying it's peninsula Valdez, and makes no mention of the other site in Santa Cruz. So... either that is an amazing coincidence and they are all wrong (as are my hard sources and what I had believed ), or the one site is wrong (well, half wrong as they did put Valdez in the South America part). I have to go with what I knew, my books say and all the sources say (even the one with the contradiction), and conclude Valdez and not Santa Cruz is the correct lowest point... but I wont make any changes based on the fact that Wikipedia claims it has been PROVEN not to be the lowest point (in the extremes on Earth article)...

This is all quite puzzling.

The dugout 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

South American cultural influence and Afro-Argentines

I know this is a bit of a sensitive subject judging by previous discussion in this page about similar issues (though, quite frankly I don't see why), but the culture sections states Argentina's culture is primarily based on European culture. Now this is 100% correct, but to not also say that gaucho culture is firmly a mixture of european and native american, and that in the north of Argentina some native american or 'South American' customs are prevalent is somewhat misinformative in my view.

Along these same lines, no mention at all is made of the afro-argentines, of the past and today. This subject in particular is the focus of MUCH debate I know, even in intellectual and research circles, but I would like to add a few things about their contributions to Argentine culture and history. I just wanted to get some feedback here about both suggestions before I proceed. Thanks! The dugout 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

This article is in need of a major cleanup. I've started removing some content that was obsolete, or too detailed, or unsourced/unverifiable. In particular, I've taken out the issue of mestizo population, mostly, since mestizo is not well defined, and stats are not tuned for that (but there are stats about ethnicity, if not in the main census). I also took out the "beggars in the street" sentence, which is sentimentalish and irrelevant for the big picture. The discussion about Martín Fierro and Facundo is OK but seems too detailed; I removed the expression "failed state" because it's a modern term and politically controversial, and unless somebody has analyzed the dichotomy using those terms, it's also original research.

We need to source everything clearly and abundantly. At this time the article weighs 71 KB and it's clearly getting bloated, so let's concentrate on streamlining the major points. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Flora/Fauna and Economy

As you can see, I'm working almost full time during my off-period to improve this article! I'm somewhat shy of being 'bold' as they tell me, so it was hard to move 'urbanization' fro Administrative Regions to Demographics, but I think it ties in much better there and is in line with all other country articles, and with Argentina's own population and demographics section.

I want to expand a little on the vegetation and animals of Argentina, as the current section is seems whoefully inadequate for the size and variety of the country (I'm a believer that certain countries need bigger sections in one thing than in others: for example, European countries should have a longer history section than American nations, on the other hand American nations are much larger and deserve extended geography sections).

Also, the economy section dwells too much in the 'argentine crisis', to which there is already a devoted article to and several other mentions in this article. In fact, Argentina's economy section on this page has ABSOLUTELY NO information on what the country produces, what it's major industries are, and it's exports, etc, etc. To me that is a diservice. So I will expand Economy to include such information, which perhaps will mean trimming a bit the current information there (or creating a new subsection for transportation with highway, railway and waterway info). The dugout 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Music II

I have decided to cut a bit music. Not because I don't like it, in fact it does perfectly summarize all the major styles currently popular in Argentina, but because it is simply a bit too long. Preferably, I would like to make the whole music section fit in a normal computer screen. But I'm not sure what I'll cut yet.

I have saved the information and once I am done with the Argentina article I will include whatever information I take out here in the relevant articles or argentine rock, cumbia villera, tango, etc. The dugout 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have transplanted what I wrote (a bit differently to harmonize with what was written already there), to the Music of Argentina Article.

I now feel I Can trim the music section here more. My goal is to make it fit in a regular monitor screen. That way it would be in line with the other sub-sections. The dugout 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I've more or less placed this section in agreement with Religion in Argentina, but the numbers are so wildly variable that it's difficult to summarize them. I left the "80% Catholic" alone because one study says 77% and another one says 83%. The problem is the number of Jews - the CIA says they're 2%, the US Department of State says they're 0.8%. I don't want to make this section larger, but then what? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentina

As you can see, the article is far more 'complete' than it was just a week ago. It had major holes such as no mention on education, science, print and media, a very poor plant and animal section. It also suffered from poor headings, topics under wrong headings, and poor flow (going from say, administrative regions to urbanization). Pictures did not match the topic discussed next to them.

Not that I like bragging, but the article now is looking much more robust and well constructed, subdivided, and complete with facts.

It is also about 85kb long. I have trimmed off all the sections unnecesary words (Like turning something like "The southern regions of the country are more inhabited by several species of animal life" to "The southern regions are inhabited by more species"), sentences with irrelevant information, etc. I will continue trimming things I don't see as fundamental.

But it is also a fact that many of the sections are cut down the near basic info already.

So the next step is first to create new articles for sections that have been created here that have no articles. The 2nd step would be to expand those sections that have good info here but their main articles are stubs. A third step would be to harmonize or expand the remaining articles. Of course this would all take a while to do, so in the immediate this article will not get much smaller. That said, I'm basically done with my contributions to this article (with only a brief overview of painters and sculputors, a mention of theater in Argentina which is very developed, and basic info on the military and fashion the only other things that are uncovered here).

I have seen that the policy of Wikepedia is for articles to not go much beyond 40 or 50kb. Many country articles however clearly surpass this. I generally agree with the Wikipedia policy, but some leniency for country articles should be given, considering that even stripping all the sections of the bare info (if the country has a long enough history, quite varied geography, and a very important cultural contribution), may yield articles longer than this. I know, (from my own experience too!) that many people, if they want info on a country, will ONLY go to the country article and if they need info on geography or music will go to the appropriate subsection and WONT bother much on going to the particular article. Out of lazyness really... I have been guilty of that myself. When people need info they believe that whatever is on the main country article is what really matters, so in my humble opinion sometimes trimming the sections too much and hoping for people to go to the specific articles is not always the case.

But let me state that it is my goal to eventually downsize this article, once appropriate separate articles for the larger sections have been updated, expanded, and harmonized. Everyone's opinion is welcome and sought :-) The dugout 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add: Canada would seem a good model to follow for this article. The Canada article is a star article, and it's 72kb long. That tells me that even though it is longer than what Wikipedia suggests, it is a robust and concise article which covers virtually all sectors of Canada, it's geography and culture. So that's a model we can follow, but it's not my suggestion we imitate it bit by bit. Argentina I think has a more expansive culture, and a more turbulent (sometimes depressing) history than Canada's, so clearly those sections might be longer in this article. But in general terms, it's a good model article. The dugout 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uruguay ??

I'm wondering if anyone knows why the mention of Uruguay being more 'european' descended than Argentina was taken off.

The way the sentence currently reads 'more so than any other Latin American country', regarding European component to the population, is erroneous. Uruguay is most deffinately more europan (italian and spanish) descended, the country has less mestizos. The dugout 15:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Blah were did you get this from this is NOT true...

Demographics

Ok, I will leave the opening statement of this section as is, since it was changed back, even as I don't think is entirely accurate (the reason I saw this as important is because it may jeopardize readers from going further and trusting the information if they don't agree fully with the opening sentence). The dugout 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

San Martin Mention

In the history section there is absolutely no mention of San Martin. If, as we all know, that is Argentina's most important figure, ever, it seems rather odd that in the history section of the country there is not even a mere mention of him!!

So I will add a short paragraph on him.The dugout 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be one, but someone took it out. In fact, after my major rewrite of Crossing of the Andes, I had added a link to that too. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

En realidad me parece que San Martin NO es la figura mas importante. En el año 1950 fue el centenario de la muerte de San Martin y Peron lo proclamo por ley como el "Año del Libertador Gral. San Martín". Estabas obligado a mencionarlo en cualquier publicacion. Trataba de esta forma que se asocie al Gral. Peron con el Gral. San Martin. Desde ahi que se lo considera como "el libertador" y se engrandece su figura. Pero en realidad pensemos que la unica batalla que San Martin peleo en Argentina fue la de San Lorenzo, que segun varios historiadores, como por ejemplo Felipe Pigna fue "una escaramuza".

mestizo minority

Who change the estimation of mestizos from 3 to 15 to 3 to 20 there is any official source woth an estimation of 20%?? I change it again. If you add it please say the source and i won't change it.

21 october 2006

To the person that removed my citation regarding the 15% mestizo minority on the grounds it's 'old' information (because it cited the country as having 33 million people):

I can very very distantly 'accept' your reason for axing my citation (that it's old).

But do you honestly BELIEVE the mestizo population has gone down since then?

Let's be clear, in my opinion your reasons are ulterior, and I'm sorry if I sound like I am casting aspertions, but I am. I will find a CURRENT documented and peer-reviewed source for that number for you. Then, you will have to accept it.

Having an article that says Argentina has a 3% mestizo population as the only quoted citation dilutes credibility to the article, is that what we are trying to do?

If Argentina is 3% mestizo, then I also inherited the Golden Gate Bridge, Big Ben, the Colon Theater and the leaning tower of Pisa. Let's get real folks... The dugout 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You know whats annoying people who try to prove there points like you do... Yeah but that Website is not only old but the government of Argentina reconcizes simular results.... http://www.turismo.gov.ar/eng/menu.htm Your source is a travel site for business. The source you gave are not comparable.

Dude I live in Argentina too... si asi es. No me vas a decir que la población es 97% 'blanca'. Me dicen eso de Islandia y me les río en la cara (por experiencia de mi tio que visitó y dice que ahora casi el 10% son asiaticos de origen 'groenlandes', y hasta algun que otro africano. Esa información de la CIA es ridícula, la misma organización que decia con seguridad que hay bombas atómicas en Irak.

If you want to believe the CIA fine. I'll go with what I see: Argentina is majority white. The dugout 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dugout, as we say, estás gastando pólvora en chimangos. The CIA figure is clearly wrong; they don't explain how they got it, and we have better sources. On the other hand, if we don't know how many mestizos (whatever that means) are in Argentina, then we don't need to give numbers.

Every once in a while there comes an editor who doesn't like the fact that Argentina is part of Latin America, and "debate" ensues. Don't bother. If both good sources and your common sense coincide, just revert to the prior version; if it's been there for a while, it's because it's probably OK. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you two that this issue has been discussed exhaustively on Talk:Demographics of Argentina; everyone, please calm down a bit and respect our consensus, que bastantes dolores de cabeza nos ha dado a todos. =) Cheers, —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mancabia

I was surprised to see at region in Argentina named Mancabia, which I not only never heard of, but of which there's is not references in the Internet. The region seams to overlap the northern Patagonia and the humid pampas. I'm not sure if this is what is sometimes called the Temperate Pampas, but in either case I suggest we change the name to this section, or merge it with the Pampa one.

Also article Regions of Argentina should be updated (it's just a stub), and referenced from this one. Perhaps we could also just move all the regions' information to the specific article and leave just a short reference here. (The article is already more than 3 times the suggested maximum size...) Mariano(t/c) 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I have searched online and not found references. So until that is the case it has been taken off.

Regarding the size of the article

Regarding the size of the article, I am always working to make the article more succint. But while Wikipedia's general rule is that articles should not be longer than a certain amount, they are more leniant with country articles. We can shrink all the sections to the bare bone and still the article will be 'longer' than suggested. We don't want to cut so much that people have to constantly open some other page. Trust me, from my personal experience, many of us are just too lazy and don't do it at all.

If I'm doing a research, or just want info, I want to have it all in one central article and not have to be opening dozens of pages to find relevant info (and have to read through so much detail!!). I agree those specific articles should be expanded, and I will help in Geography and Music, but the other ones I can use some help! The dugout 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree countries might have a bit longer articles, andthe size policy is a suggestion, not a rule. Nevertheless, being 3 times the suggested size, it is true that people trying to get a glipse of the country will get soon bored. Usually is best to have a short general briefing on the section, and leave the gross part for the sub-article. Of course, the more important the section, the longer it could be, never the less, sections such as History, Economy, Demographics (probably to merge with population), Culture (specially Music) could/should be compacted. I will atack now the Public Holidays section, since we already have Public holidays in Argentina.

BTW, you can use two points (:) in talk pages to indent your text and facilitate the reading. Mariano(t/c) 08:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi people i have just joined and am from Argentina. Is it wrong if I delete some parts of "culture" section? It is longer than History and Politics togeter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RG Bargie (talk • contribs).

Deleting is not the solution. moving it to the corresponding sub-articles and copy editing it to shorten it should be preferred. But this must be done carefully. Mariano(t/c) 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WAIT!!!!

Don't delete info yet, take a look to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, is a guide to write excelent prose for featured articles, but it is a good idea to read the "redundance" bit. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Meat

Im just gonna suggest a few more argentine meat cuts to place in the small food part: Vacío, Lomo (in english, loin), tira de asado.

If anyone can think of more, just paste them here.

Thanks,

Slartibartfast1992 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Argentine beef. Bife de Chorizo, Chinchulines trensados, mollejas, matambre, bola de lomo, ... Mariano(t/c) 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Colita de cuadril, peceto, lengua.

Demographics

I edited the section with the agrrement of all these regular users. Please Dunadan, discuss before edited without consensus:

From the discussion in the Archive 4

I have found an article (and other like it) that prove it is pretty much impossible to prove Native American heritage. http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html

(24.60.161.63 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Please, try to be a little bit more constructive with your comments. The article you provide certanly questions the genetic test to identify Native Americans, and is very interesting. By no means should we ignore such analisys, but perhaps we could keep references to both studies: the genetic research, and its critic. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) The article says that trying to determine NA heritage with mtDNA testing 1) yields many false negatives; 2) yields some false positives. It doesn't say that it's impossible to do it. In fact, when applied to large populations, it probably underestimates the number of people with NA heritage, especially since many of the false positives can be readily discarded by asking the person about its heritage (if they say they have a Samoan or Japanese female ancestor, for example). I think the observation is valuable, but it belongs in the article about genetic testing, not here. In any case one must assume that the scientists who conducted the tests know about these things and didn't just release a raw number without taking them into account. I might also point out that the criticism in question is found in the website of an organization called Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and is written specifically to highlight the problems of native affiliation in the U.S., where people can benefit from affirmative action policies if they can prove they're part of a minority group. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I never said it was impossible, just nearly impossible, sorry about that. Anyways, they have found that many Southern Europeans have these "Markers" and this matchs exactally to Argentina, since many are from Spain and Italy (Southern European countries). So therefore if a vast number of people where surveyed they could yield the results found in the testing. These "markers" would most likely show up in many Argentines since many are of Southern European decent. The "Clarin" article states very clearly what "markers" they used. All this matches the article I posted. The article clearly says many scientist simply just don't enough about these markers and only a few do. The Clarin article does not state that they know about how many people throughout the world share these same "halogroups" or "Markers" and therefore there is no proof that they knew about this. Also The article states for Native Americans testing and they compare to many different kinds of people in the world, so in context you can assume its not just the Native Americans in the US. So I hardly dought that also. Since there were also Native Americans that lived on the boarders of what is now the Canada and Mexico. (24.60.161.63 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm on favour of keeping the genetic test, and adding at its end a comment such as though some scientist disbelieve of such genetic markers test with the corresponding reference: let the reader draw his/her conclusions. Mariano(t/c) 08:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not why? because it hasnt been proven yet 100 why make an article that isnt 100 precent and that has many flaws? I agree that people have a right to make up there mind about opionion subjects the Demographics of Argentina are not this case however. The research reported by Clarin, althought it was professional it's was flawed. No point on adding flawed information or disproven imformation.(24.60.161.63 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Could you tell us where you're getting all these data from? You mentioned only one article, and that's what I criticized. It doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The genetic study must mean something, or else no respected scientist would use it... Also, nothing is 100% certain, but neither is it true that people "have a right to make up their opinion" in every case. We should only present reputable opinions based on good science. Neither you nor I have the credentials to disqualify a scientific study based on our opinions. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Pablo, you have not read the article very carefully it seems, I QUOTE now: "Some of the haplotypes attributed to Native Americans are also found in people from other parts of the world.Å A, B, C, and D are found in North Asia, and X is found in southern Europe and Turkey. In fact, the principal marker of haplotype B is called the "9 base pair deletion," and is found in some Japanese and almost all Samoans. Could they then be classified as genetically Native American?Å These tests cannot even establish with certainty that, for example, someoneªs motherªs motherªs mother was Native American‚they can at best establish a certain probability that this was the case." This makes it very clear. This is also a genetic study so this also must mean something, and yes your genetic study does mean something, but it does not mean that 56 precent of Argentines have Native American hertiage. It most likely means that 56 precent carry this "marker". So it does mean something I am not trying to say it doesn't mean anything. However, it is incorrect. That is all I am saying. Not to put down your Clarin article and make it seem useless but I dont think it belongs in the Argentine Demographics section. I presented this article to show you that it has been proven that Genetic testing for Native Americans is Faultly at best. Also, you say it does not support Native Americans from South America... Really then how come also do testing on Native Americans from South America? They state on there website they are for all Native Americans and have collected there genetical studies also from South American natives. Your right we don't we can only look at the facts, but these are both genetical studys and one clearly gives more detail about why the other is faulty. (24.60.161.63 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Wow! This study is very interesting! This clearly disproves the Clarin.com article, that the way sciencists find Native American Ancestry is still flawed. I would have never known. I agree however, the Genetic study on Clarin.com should not be mentioned as this seems to be a newer study. I can see why such a high precentage of Argentines had the "Marker" as it occurs in Southern Europe,Turkey and Northern Asia. I don't think we should include old imformation on this article. The Demographics of Argentina should be factual not based on opinion of the reader as most sources will tell you.(209.150.51.78 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

I repeat, the paper doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The Clarín article is not "disproved"; the genetic study gives results that must be interpreted. The cited paper is not a newer study, it's just criticism of the method employed to identify Amerindian heritage. In light of the above, I've changed the relevant information in Demographics of Argentina and here. I agree that so much detail could be skipped in this article, though certainly not in the specific Demographics article, so I wouldn't have a problem with removing the mention of the genetic study from Argentina if there's a consensus about it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Okay your right it doesnt say "many" but it does say Southern Europeans do. So just on the merit it must be atleast present to some common degree if they were able to find it in Southern European populations. Which would yield such closely results as 56 precent and not lets say 75 precent or so. Okay I agree about removing the genetic study because it is clearly too unclear if its 100 precent correct or not.

(24.60.161.63 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Very fanicasting Article. It clearly shows there are many flaws in how Scienists prove Ameridian Ancestry. After reviewing the article, I must say to leave out the previous genetical study found at Clarin.com. Thank you. (69.16.84.36 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

As I said before, I also agree with removing the other Genetic Study. There is simply too much against it.(209.150.51.78 02:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. I also think anyone should help from it being put back up again, from those like Al-Andalus, who even Pablo-Flores has had problems with.(DJBenny 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Ehm, I agree with removing the paragraph about the genetic tests, but I'd like to hear from other, long established editors as well. DJBenny, please wait before changing so many tiny bits of the article. I do not agree with the simplistic "97% white"; that's a raw number from the CIA Factbook and really says nothing to the reader. See all the previous (long!) discussion in Talk:Demographics of Argentina. I really really think we should avoid all references to race unless we know what the method is to qualify it (e. g. "97% of Argentinians call themselves 'white'" or "according to CIA agents Mulder and Scully,¹ 97% of Argentinians are phenotypically white"). Then there's the number/percentage of Jews -- what's with that? Please, anybody, bring forth good sources and give your opinion, and then we can change the article. Remember this is a Good Article, so in principle it shouldn't need any of us making major changes. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ¹ Yeah, I know they're FBI, not CIA. I've been thinking in Japanese for the last two hours, so bear with me. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about this I mean I understand it gives it says nothing to reader, but however all the other Nation pages are like this. Okay how about something like "97 precent of Argentines are of European decent or so" . I can Understand your position though. It did anger me however, that Germans weren't even considered on the top 3. We all know as Argentines,Pablo-Flores, that Germans in Argentina are not all uncommon, in fact they are very common. The 2 precent Jewish estaminate comes from the CIA world fact book and is already a part of the Demographics of Argentina page so I just put that there instead of having the articles saying two different things. I hope your not critizing me for putting bogus stuff up this was all from the previous Argentina page with the exception to the 2 precent Jewish estimate. I am sorry if my changes were very drastic, however Al-Andalus changed much and did the same and if I remember correctly you weren't to happy with it either. haha its okay I have had those days myself =P (DJBenny 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Because of the possible errors in Clarin, i agree to delete. Now: someone changed "Himno Nacional Argentino" for "Marcha de la Patria", a name that has not been used for decades so I think i'll deletre that now. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Me being happy or unhappy about something is not the issue (I don't own this article) but whether the source is good and other editors agree (I mean especially those at WP:AR, who've been around for a while). I don't know how numerous German-descended people are; I think there are many but I don't have a number. According to the sources of Immigration in Argentina, in the period 1895-1947 there were more immigrants from Poland, Russia and France than from Germany. Placing Germany next to Spain and Italy suggests a very large contribution from Germany, which is not the case (and this is common public knowledge). I've just tidied up the article. You tell me what it looks like. It mentions the 97%, even though I still think it doesn't mean nothing (the CIA doesn't explain what it means, though it does say that "white" is considered an ethnic group, but see the problems with the term white). The Clarín ref is gone. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad to see a conclusionm. I would have to disagree with you on that one Pablo Germans have been a very important group moving to Argentina however most of them came after world war II so that be from 1945 all the way from 1955 around there. Even though we can not find an number of people who are German we know from our "common Argentine exprience" Germans are very common in Argentina. Many of the numbers I found were to varied so I really don't trust them. I found this one article: http://www.geographia.com/argentina/buenosaires/Index.htm saying that Italian and German names today outnumber Spanish names. So Germans must be, and I know just from living in Argentina pratically all my life that finding out Argentines with a German Ancestry. Also remember to be "German" back in 1800's and early 1900's was a very loose term most of since many Volga Germans came from Russia, which made up the bulk of Russian immigration to Argentina during the 1800's and early 1900's. Also from the Austrian-Hungrian Empire which much of there resident were also German. The reason I put German as the thrid because I feel that it is part of the "big three" for say obviously Italians and Spaniards are more. Tell me Pablo-Flores How is it learning Japanese?(DJBenny 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Dunadan YOU KEEP EDITING DATA THAT WAS REMOVED WITH THE CONSENSUS OF MANY USERS (and all the users woking regularly in this article) without consensus:

Why does the Demographics section start with the genetic research? It sounds illogical. The Genetical research should be a Nevertheless to the Argentina’s population is primarily of European extraction and not the other way around. Also, I thikn it would be best to leave this topics in a compact version for the Argentina article, to be expanded in the Demographics article, and not having several paragraphs duplicated!!!! Mariano(t/c) 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'll start rewording it. Al-Andalus 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mariano; as stated before, the main information must be on Demographics of Argentina. --Darklegions 06:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE IN DISAGRREMENT WITH THE MAJORITY (as you can see in your post below), I'm going to ask for protection again, if you don't at least discuss with the users that agreed with delete the article because it wasn't relevant and it had several critics:

Ethnicity is a very complicated issue, and I happen to disagree with the result of this discussion. For starters, demographic statistics are not perfect, and are based on people's responses. The census in Argentina, in terms of ethnicity, was based simply on self-ascription: that is, they asked the individuals whether they consider themselves Mestizo, Amerindian or of European ancestry. Needless to say, very few individuals self-ascribe as Mestizo and Amerindian. Genetic studies and their finding reports, which suggest a 56% of the population with some Amerindian ancestry, are blatantly ignored in this article, even though they are included in es:Argentina and es:Composición étnica de Argentina, all properly referenced, which suggests the information presented here in the English Wikipedia is bordering on WP:POV. If this is a contentious issue that is discussed ad nauseum, then I propose that we Request for Arbitration so that all arguments, fully referenced, are presented to stand scrutiny by external editors to suggest and unbiased conclusion in this particular matter. --the Dúnadan 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, This hasn't been an issue for a while. But thanks for your help. XGustaX 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an issue, because I disagree with the solution that has been imposed so far. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dúnadan. This article has been POV for far too long. Mariokempes 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I am Requesting for Arbitration. I will let you know about the process, and how every concerned editor can participate. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

190.16.28.25 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)snowhite1985190.16.28.25 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edition WHAT DOES A GENETIC STUDY OF ONLY 10 PROVINCES OUT OF 24 in the country about some distant native american ancestry has to do with demographics???? Norwegians have a 2% of african admixture is this important at all??? I doubt it....

190.16.31.79 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Marie190.16.31.79 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sport

I've made this less partisan but have not verified what is said. There are very few references in this section which is worrying SuzanneKn 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Railways in Argentina

I'm copying this from my talk page. The guy has a point, but I'm not sure what to do. The relevant diff is not helpful anyway, and I know next to nothing about this topic, or where to look.

Hola, soy galio de la es: con unos minutos de tiempo libre que no bastan para loguear allá. Cuestión que le pasé una revisada rápida al artículo Argentina en inglés y aparentemente, en algún momento entre la vez anterior que lo leí y esta, alguien modificó el apartado sobre transporte. Donde antes decía que la red ferroviaria cayó en desuso y deterioro notorio desde la liquidación de FA en 1993, hoy dice algo como que "después de décadas de falta de mantenimiento y malos servicios, los ferrocarriles se privatizaron en 1993". No sólo es tendencioso, sino que omite la parte más importante —el hecho de que hubiera trenes hasta el '93 y no después— y para peor es falso.

La cantinela de la falta de mantenimiento es más para Dromi que para una enciclopedia, y aunque desde 1955 las sucesivas administraciones se encargaron de ir destruyendo los ferrocarriles, decir que FA no hacía mantenimiento es una mentira infundada como decir que Gas del Estado no hacía obra. Hasta 1993 los 34.000 kilómetros de vías entonces activos eran operables, con una mayoría de vías en buen estado, servicios de pasajeros a todo el país. Incluso durante los años '80 se hicieron cosas, como la electrificación del Roca, la nueva señalización del Urquiza —que ALL desmanteló—, etc. Perdón que te lime, pero un poco de evidencia empírica para respaldarme no sobra. ¿Podrás hacer algo? Los historiales de la en: me pierden, pero en algún lado está la frase vieja. Saludos y gracias. --200.85.115.19 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in Argentina#The railway system is not helpful either, and moreover, it lacks sources and the presentation sounds a bit POV. Please help! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the diff you cite refers to my edits, where I tried to improve the phrasing of what was written before. I agree that it might sound POV as it stands now, but I don't agree with the statement that the trains disappeared only after the privatization; that's clearly biased without discussing the politics behind the lack of maintenance in the railway system. Long distance trains disappeared long before the privatization in many places, and the fact that sleeper bars made of quebracho were for sale at auctions all over the country I think prevented trains from using the railway, wouldn't it? I couldn't find the version the user talks about, but reading his opinion I think I support the current version over it. -- dockingman^talk 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My only problem is the lack of sources. It doesn't matter what our opinion is; we need objective assessments of the state and quality of railways, which is a huge topic in the case of Argentina, and a very significant one as well. If you have sources that you can cite, or people you can consult about this, please put them forth. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics section

An anon user was moving things around here and I reverted the change. Have a look at the history and see if you want to leave a comment here. I am quite happy with the section as it is, I think. --Guinnog 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a sizable Black population in Argentina? I know in the past there was a large population outnumbering whites. Were they affected by assimilation? From "whitening" the population (that is encouraging European immigration for "development")? Or were they annihilated by the Argentine government (which wouldn't surprise me)?

There used to be a small black population in Argentina, which has now virtually disappeared. It is absolutely inaccurate that there ever was a large enough black population in the country that outnumbered non-blacks. As in the rest of the continent Arfican blacks were brought in as slaves but in much smaller numbers than in other countries in the region. Initially there was a majority of natives; those populations were indeed decimated by disease, slavery and massacres. As late as the mid- to late-19th century there were "campañas al desierto," state-organized military expeditions to the south (Patagonia) to take land and eliminate natives. Corto 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question(s). Whether or not Argentina had a small or large Black population, the fact is they had a population nonetheless. How did they virtually disappear? Miscegenation or conspiracy?

There was no Conspiracy. They disappeared because they lived in plagued areas of the cities in Argentina and died by the thousands, which led them to dissapear, to pretty much disspeared. So he did answer your question they disspeared much like the Natives did. So yeah like you said before your right.

Argentina never had a large black population because it never needed the workforce. Slaves were used in plantations, mines, all things that do not exist in the central territory. In the north, there was native population that was force to work in mitas. So, they were reduced to work in houses as personal service staff, never in a large number. Also, the independence army used them a lot as a cannon fodder, because the survivors were granted with the liberty. Rosas did the same in 1830. When, in 1853, the slavery was abolished, the presence of black people was minimal. Then, in the war of the Triple Alliance they were conscripted with gauchos, beggars and criminals and fought in frontline regiments. Few survived the war, and most of them died in the yellow fever epidemic of 1860. BorisDelMas 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing some reading I found that there was a sizable population of blacks in Argentina during the 19th century. I found that during the Rosas´ rule 30% of the population was black (which mean 1 out 2 was black! that seem pretty important to me). Although it varied through out the country sometimes even reaching 50% in the northeast(Catamarca)!. Also there was a need in work force since Argentina was a colony, blacks worked in mining and agriculture (cattle); they were also used in domestic labor (servants). As for the disappearing, there aren't many documents about it, but many theories try to explain this event. Most historians agree that blacks were forced to enlist in the military and they were send to the battle front, usually used as shields. Also since slaves were expensive to keep, especially the ones working in houses, enjoyed a high standard of living (compare to other slaves), when they were freed, they didn't have any resources to make a living so many just died of hunger or sickness (yellow fever epidemic of 1860). Other part of the population they mixed with the Europeans, thus giving birth to the "gaucho" culture as well as the tango and milonga (which in the 19th century was though to be a dance for the low class)here is the link I found most of the info, this a government site, so i think is a good reference. (its in Spanish,) link I think that blacks were very important in the early culture of Argentina, and many ppl diminish how much importance they had in the construction of the country and identity of Argentinians, but thats just an opinion, some ppl say that we cant talk about the blacks disappearing, because the fact that some little mixture remains in some of the population; especially those families that have been living in the country for a longer time Ckill 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Source fails to say what you have stated especially since Blacks where never a very large group in Argentina to begin with as it already discuss. Futhermore this mixing you talk about is minimal since studies show only 2-5 precent of Argentines have some African Lineage. Tango also has been proven to not have African influence( and it quiet obvious it doesn't) Since the word Tango also existed back then in Spanish. To me it seems this source is undependable. The Guacho Culture was not purely based on Black-Argentines, The Spaniards were the ones who introduced the whole ""cowboy"" way of living to the new world, so thats another thing that is your wrong with your statement. Also, It is true that Blacks dissapeared, all you have to do is look at Argentines and studies done.(XGustaX 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

So wait your saying that 30% percent is not a large population, of course this in percentage, the total population of Argentina we indeed very minimal, i do i greed with that; but we cant denied that there a was a population, which in numbers may not have been very big compare to colonial country, but they were a sensitive part of the population. I don't argue with the fact that there is only 2-5 percent of African linear, since i said "the fact that some little mixture remains in some of the population", i never said BIG, i said little. Tango does have some black influence, as well as indian influence, but i would not call it major influence because Argentina was a melt paint for many cultures.Here is a source if you doubt me link, source states that the dance that this blacks, Indians, gauchos, sailers and mulatons dance was not per say tango, but it became the base by which it was developed, thus my point is proven, there was an influence. Saying that the word is Spanish origin doest prove anything, they named it that, because everybody spoke Spanish. You said that it obvious that it does not have influence, thats is a presumption statement, (so because they not dancing samba and playing the drum they are not black???!) and i think is wrong to assume things which we clearly none of use are experts, we as writers should always keep an open mind. Well you are right though that gaucho is not purely base on blacks argentine, but it would be wrong to deny their influence. The previews source (link) states that although the diminution of the black population is very real, it would be illegitimate to talk about blacks disappearing, since there been a clear influence in politician and society discussion, and that there have been a project during the 1890s to whiten the Argentinine population. One more thing, next time plz put some refences, so i can see from where your are supporting your arguments. thx Ckill 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For one your 30 precent figure is completely mistaken it was at the very max. 10 precent.[3] So based on that your sources are flawed. Try to get Offical sources that know about what they are talking about It Tango has been proven to have no African, Especially no Indian influence since most of the Indians were killed.[4]. Tourism websites are not authoratative sources and we do not use them here. The article states that some Guachos were Mulattos then again this does not mean they influenced the Gaucho way of life especially since most of that life style comes from Spanish. You say that the disappearance of blacks is very real then again it it isn't? You cannot flip flop one way or another since your already flawed sources talk of no such ""clear influences"" since most were killed off! Your sources are flawed I would like you to find sources that are actually authoratative.(XGustaX 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I have found several source that support many of my points: here they are 1 this an article from the washington post, 2, 3 This is the previews source that i posted, this source was written by Miriam Victoria Gomes who is a professor of the university of buenos aires (Integrante de la Sociedad Caboverdiana; de la Cátedra Abierta de Estudios Americanistas (UBA) y de la Unión de Mujeres Afrodescendientes de la República Argentina.) this the full title, so i guess my source is pretty revelant since it was written by an expert in the field, i didn't not know this when i first posted the source. If you check at the button of the page there is also a bibliography of where she is supporting her argument,4 Written by Lucía Dominga Molina, founder of Casa de la Cultura Indo-Afro-Americana., 5 an argentine journalist., in regard of thango, 6 this a long interview with Robert Farris Thompson (Professor Thompson is Colonel John Trumbull Professor of the History of Art at Yale University), this a a reviews of thomsons book, it says some of his arguments 7, I dont have to time now to look for more in depth resource about tango, but ill go on posting them as i find them. Tell what you think about my resouces. Ckill 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Afro-Argentines never made up a huge amount like Brazil which you seem to be comparing it to. All your sources even say the same thing. We have discussed the World bank source it was a survey which is completely different. Your other sources are deff. lacking I would have agree. I mean the second one was almost purely based on factual oppion. You Keep trying to give us information of the history of Argentina before its great immigration and we know all that. Even though your sources are either incorrect or just based on peoples historical opinions on the subject. That is proabably what they mean, since that has also already been discussed. It was thought that Tango had African roots because of its name but now it is no the word Tango existed in Spanish before. (24.60.175.168 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Your last source states nothing about what you claim. Addition He is right we have already discussed the World Bank survey and its just that a Survey, nothing Scientific about it. What I told you before about the genetics was the scientfic finds and all your sources state the same time after time. That Afro-Argentines have almost completely dissapeared althought. Apparently they don't know what they are talking about because they are contridicting what most sources say of Afro-Argentines. Most Africans in the those provinces they speak about were there for a short time and then sold up north to Peru they never stayed long in Argentina. That is why there were never large numbers. I don't get why you keep citing sources like this. If you look above in the conversations they explain all about Afro-Argentines. Most were killed off and this fact is well known Ckill. I have to agree with the user above your about your sources even the Washington post they have some errorous information since many have proven that Africans died by the thousands in the Paraguayan war and the Yellow fever that struck Argentina in 1870s. They all either don't state what you say or are based on opinons of the author. (XGustaX 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

yeah i do agree that now at days afro-argentine are a minimal group, i guess i was trying to prove their importance in the past. Anyway i agree with that some of the sources are bases on on opions. I still have a doubts, all of my sources states that there was about a 30% percent of afros in argentina in 1810, other claim it was 30% in buenos aires; but you claim is 10%, which one is it?.Thx for the discussion it has been very helpful to me to learn a lil about wikipedia since im new to these. 201.81.37.164 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's no Problem I am glad you learned something. I am glad also. Yeah thats something you learn I guess. I am glad to meet you take care. If you have any more questions feel free to message me. Have a good one.(XGustaX 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

GDP

Hey guys, I keep on seeing people changing the GDP per capita in the table; the changes are reverted very quickly because they are anonymous edits without an edit summary. However, now I see the point of the changes: the data currently in the article looks like the one from 2005, the updated values are in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, 2006 and are actually the ones that editors were adding, but without sourcing. I updated the data and filled the edit summary, hope it's OK. Cheers! -- dockingman^talk 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Sorry I didn't do it myself, but I'm loosing too much time cheking my overgrown watchlist for vandalism... Mariano(t/c) 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pleased to help! -- dockingman^talk 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's playing with the demographics section? / Who change the major ethnic Spanish groups

Someone change the demograohics sections with incorrect information again. Pablo you are the one that keep this articles so well written could you ask for protection against vandalism???.

Someone deleted the info of Galicians Basque and Catalans being the most important ethnic Spanish groups in the country. Who could do that? I changed it again. I think we don't even need sources about that fact do we? Go to the Basque Argentinian official site 10% of the population is Basuqe!! and 80% of the Spanish immigration in the 20th century was Galician!. God! WHo change that?? It couldn't be n Argentinian who pass primary school god!!. I hate people without sources and reliable information who change data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.16.20.183 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 November 2006.

I moved your comments down here and signed them for you. Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, and sign them using four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep track of who is saying what and when.

There are many people working to keep this article well-written, not just me, but most of us also have other things to do. It's important that wrong data added to the article can be spotted quickly and removed. The best way to do this, when the data is clearly not correct, is by reverting (see Help:Reverting).

The demographics section of this article has been a problem since... ever. At least on my watch, anything edited in that section and others without a good justification will be reverted as soon as I spot it; but I'm not watching all the time. I could protect the page, but this is not vandalism, it's simply people altering an article to reflect what they believe is true, without taking the time and effort to check the facts. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to revert the text when i see changes. But i've seen how many problems we have had with that section and i like the way it is now. It couldn't be beter and more precise and accurate than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.226.252 (talk • contribs).

Education

At the end of the first paragraph of that section it says: "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, comparable to other developed nations" implying that argentina is a developed nation as well, that sentance has to change, what about "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, which is very good for a developing nation" --Supaman89

Ok, I've fixed the problem. --Supaman89

Supaman, you are right that the sentence implied (incorrectly) that Argentina was a developed country, but I am afraid that the new sentence does not sound encyclopedical. I would propose the following: "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, comparable to developed nations"; thus, eliminating the word "other" we get to eliminate the implication of Argentina as a developed country (which is not, as it is already very clear in the rest of the article). Do you oppose to such wording? --Diegou 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm what about, "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, the second highest in Latin America, just after Uruguay" --Supaman89

I think I would be better to settle with "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%". By adding the link to the list of countries by literacy rate, any person can have his own conclusions and we will avoid any dispute on whether Argentina's literacy rate is higher/lower/comparable to any other country. I am correcting the wording in the article.--Diegou 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure I don't really mind. Now changing the subject a little bit, what do you think about the question bellow, about the city of "La Plata" being the first city in Latin America with electric street illumination. --Supaman89

Honestly, I do not know. Have you tried to google it? It sounds to me as feasible, since La Plata was made from scratch at the end of the 19th century, as the capital city of the richest province of Argentina, and at a moment of big prosperity in the country. But I ignore the source of the information. We might wait a few days to see if the author replies. If not, a citation needed should be added.--Diegou 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is that feasible, usually the first city to have the latest technology is the capital city, maybe instead of La plata, it was Buenos Aires, or maybe it wasn't an argentine city at all, I don't really know, but I couldn't find anything that refers to this "Fact" rather than this site, which of course takes its information from Wikipedia :D. --Supaman89

Hey, I found this link that says that La Plata was in fact the first city not only in Argentina but in whole South America with electric street illumination: http://www.edelap.com.ar/120/llego.htm

The citation does not extend to the rest of Latin America, but it gives a reasonable indication that the assertion might be right. You might check in which year Mexico got electric street illumination for the first time, in order to check whether the assertion is still true in other Latin American countries not belonging to South America.

In any case, let's see if the editor that put the phrase finally appears and gives us his source.--Diegou 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this website, from the Mexican government that states that Mexico City started having electric street illumination in residential areas in 1881, four years before the city of La Plata, but it wasn't until 1885 that it started to spread throughout the whole city, now it depends on your criteria to think whether Mexico was in fact the first country in Latin America to have this kind of technology or both Mexico and Argentina had it at the same time. --Supaman89

Interesting. Then, I will put a "citation needed" until someone comes up with the proper source. Regards. --Diegou 14:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who advocates for the Falkland Islands to be considered in any way as part of Argentina is a fascist.

There is universal agreement among the residents of the Falkland Islands that this territory 1) is and 2) should be part of the UK. The UK also exercises the actual governmental authority over this territory, and maintains a military force to (rightfully) enforce that authority.

The only reason some Argentinians (and I don't care if it's 99% of them) consider this a "sensitive" issue is because they are fascist nationalists who want to impose their will on a foreign people, as is anyone who takes their side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.2.173 (talk • contribs).

Map

I propose we use the CIA map and don't use the changed map which show the Falkands as a part of Argentina Somethingoranother 23:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So you propose using the map you have removed three times? Hmmm. I am fine with using it, it was the existing status quo before you started editing. It is a good map and its copyright status allows us to use it. Why were you trying to remove it in the first place, and why have you changed your mind? --Guinnog 23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was simply that the previous one had been unfairly edited to make the Falkands the same colour as Argentina, something which is unfair on those who live in the Falkands. Somethingoranother 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are, once again, pushing your own POV in articles. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Somethingoranother, even though argentines claim the "Falkland Islands" or as they call them "Islas Malvinas" are part of Argentina, they're technically part of the UK. --Supaman89

I'm pushing POV? lol you're pushing POV by constantly changing the map back to the previous edited one which shows the falklands in the same colour as argentina. why can't you let the neutral, unedited CIA fact book one be used? Somethingoranother 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is supposed to be NPOV on here and you keep changing the map to a POV bias edited map which simply offends. I am going to change the map to the undedited CIA fact book map which someone else agreed with before you came along Somethingoranother 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the map to the neutral unbias map from the CIA fact book, replacing the edited map which is the same map but had been edited to make the Falkands the same colour as Argentina. This new map supports NPOV Somethingoranother 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have got consensus 2 other people already agreed the new one is better and guinnog said the new one does seem better. Only you seem to have a problem with it. Somethingoranother 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Guinnog did not agree with you but instead, quite clearly, agreed with leaving in the original photo. One person agreeing with you isn't consensus. Two people agreeing with you isn't consensus. It takes more than a half hour to garner consensus. Please stop making POV edits. IrishGuy ^talk 00:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Common people this is about facts, and the fact of the matter is that the Falklands are not part of Argentina. --Supaman89

As the original map very clearly indicates. --Guinnog 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We should keep the CIA map and not the one that shows the falklands as a part of Argentina.--Wesborland 13:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, people, as all of you know (or should know, if participating on this debate), the issue of the Islas Malvinas is very sensitive to the Argentines and to the inhabitants of the islands. We will not end this debate with one part getting consensus for its position, since there will always be a bunch of others supporting the other position. A compromise position should be reached.

I think that the thing that is disturbing for the pro-Argentina position is that the Islas Malvinas are marked with the same color of the rest of the foreign countries. Can I suggest to mark the islands with a different color, for instance green, so as to make clear that the islands are under an anomalous status (anomaly accepted by the UN by admitting that there is a sovereignty dispute, many countries (especially in Latin America) do not recognize the British sovereignty and support Argentine claims, etc.)?

I know this solution would be unsatisfactory to both positions, but would all agree on it as a compromise?--Diegou 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopaedia and the fact of the matter is that the Islands are not part of Argintina they are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. In this instance Somethingoranother is correct to use the image as published on the CIA website (without alterations). A few countries accept Argentina's claim, but most accept the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, significantly the Falkland Islanders themselves. « Keith » 16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Argentina and some other countries (as you say) do consider the islands as part of Argentina. And the UN General Assembly and the UN Decoloniztion Committee have many times officialy recognized that there is a sovereignty dispute and called the parties to negotiate. I am not sure whether most of the countries accept the UK claim (I could not find any list, so I will be thankful if you have one), but even so it is clear that there is no global recognition on the islands sovereignty.

So, I come back to my conclusion that the situation is anomalous, and to my proposal of marking the islands with a different color.--Diegou 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually only a handful of South American countries support Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands, even such South American countries as Chile oppose Argentina's claim. Support for Britain's claim can be found in many places such as the European Union, particularly France amongst others, which showed support for Britain when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, and generally continues to do so to this day. The United States officially kept itself neutral on the issue because it has treaties with both Britain and Argentina but makes no attempt to hide its support for Britain to continue its control of the Falkland Islands, as it did during the Falklands War by offering material aid and intelligence to Britain to ensure they recaptured the islands. Ronald Reagan later spoke openly that he personally supported Britain during the Falklands War but had to keep the United States officially neutral as it considered itself an ally of both countries. The United Nations during the Falklands War issued a resolution calling for both sides to cease hostilities and for Argentina to withdraw from the Falkland Islands. This proves that the majority of the world considered Argentina's move to invade the Falkland Islands as aggressive and wanted Argentina to leave the Falklands and therefore be returned to British control. The reason for this was if Argentina could claim territories it may once have held many centuries ago then all countries could follow suit and hence no country could be safe from another country making a claim to territories they may have once held at some point in history. Aside from history, the reason why the map used by Wikipedia to display Argentina's political borders should be that of the neutral United States government organisation, the CIA, is that the CIA's map is a neutral, non biased map of Argentina as the CIA is required by the United States government to show no bias towards either party on the issue. Rather than use an altered version of the map, which has clearly been altered to show a point of view in favour of Argentina, which breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we should instead use the CIA's map, which has favour of almost everyone who has discussed this issue. Somethingoranother 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

France only "supported" Britain during the Falklnads War when Prime Minister Thatcher threatened to nuke the Argentine city of Cordoba if the French War Minister didnt give Britain the codes to disarm the french-made exocet missiles sold to the Argentines not long before the war. France barely supported Britain - especially as it made France look like a laughing stock to the rest of the world's arms trading markets!

I see that you say that I am trying to mark the islands with the same color of Argentina, so I guess you did not follow my reasoning and neither understand my proposal. What I proposed above was to mark the islands with a color different from Argentina's and from the rest of the countries, considering the anomalous position regarding sovereignty recognition by the rest of the world. What I said above is that marking the color with either Argentina's or the other countries color would raise POV claims, which is easily demonstrated by the different positions here. Also, what I said above is that no possible consensus would be reachable, and that's why I proposed a compromise solution.

Regarding the rest of your post, there are some inaccuracies that I am willing to correct.

As to Chile, although supported UK during the war, currently supports Argentina's claim (see http://www.region.com.ar/pehuenche/noticias06/noticias2006_04.htm). And it is not only a handful of South American countries that support Argentina's claim, but all of them (see http://www.comunidadandina.org/documentos/dec_int/dec_cochabamba_malvinas.htm).

As to the US, as you well say, it is officially neutral. The personal opinion of Ronald Reagan after leaving the White House is not US policy.

Regarding the UN Resolution during the war (I guess that you refer to UN Security Council Resolution No. 502), you are right in the sense that it proved that the majority of the world considered Argentina's move to invade the Islands as aggressive (which I agree it was), but it cannot be inferred that it implied that the majority of the world wanted Argentina to leave the Falklands and therefore be returned to British control. The Resolution of the UN Security Council only intended to preserve the ante bellum statu quo. This is easily demonstrated by UN General Assembly Resolution No. 37/9 of 11/04/82 (i.e., the same year of the war), requesting "the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"; i.e., the majority of world still acknowledged after the war that there was a sovereignty dispute yet unsolved. This call was repeated by UN General Assembly Resolutions Nos. 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, and by many resolutions and press releases of the UN Decoloniztion Committee.

Incidentally, this year the Organization of American States (see http://www.oas.org/speeches/speech.asp?sCodigo=06-0120) and the Ibero-American Countries Summit (including all Latin American countries plus Spain and Portugal) (see http://www.oei.es/xvicumbrecom.htm#6) have again called the parties to resume negotiations on the issue of the sovereignty .

I do not have information of countries other than the South American countries (supporting Argentina's claim) or the EU and the Brithis Commonwealth (supporting UK's claim). Especially regarding the major countries, we just saw the the US is neutral, but I would like see something about Russia, China, India, etc. I will be thankful if you can provide a sourced list showing which country in the world supports each position.

Anyway, even if only a handful of South American countries suppport Argentina's claim (which we have seen that it is not true), it is still true that UK's sovereignty on the islands is not globally accepted.

So, having concluded that UK's sovereignty is not universally acknowledged and that some countries recognize Argentina's claims, I repeat again my proposal of marking the islands with a different color. Since such color would be different from Argentina's and the rest of world color, I cannot think of a most NPOV compromise.--Diegou 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have considered your proposal to change the colour that the Falkand Islands are represented in and have decided that this would only confuse readers into thinking that the Falkland Islands are in some way joint controlled, which is certainly not the case as the Falklands are fully under the control of Britain. Argentina only has a claim to the Falkland Islands and has no form of control over them. You make a case that not all countries support Britain's control over the Falkland Islands and that somehow this invalidates Britain's control over them. This contradicts with other cases such as Taiwan’s defacto independence or China's control over Tibet, which many countries do not support but fact is fact and the majority of people acknowledge this and simply present the facts. Many territories around the world have had a claim made upon them by another country but this usually has little effect in most cases but seems to have been embroidered in this case, most probably because of the question it brought up at the time as to whether Britain was still a major power or not. Most of all the Falkland Islanders themselves want to remain under British control, something which Argentina totally disregards and obviously disregards the notion of self-determination of peoples. The issue over the Falkland Islands continues to this day because when the Argentine government of the time invaded the Falkland Islands they did it mainly to try to win over support from their own people who were sick of the ailing dictatorship government which had caused Argentina to almost collapse. They also thought that capturing the Falklands would gain them international standing. Argentina completely underestimated Great Britain and when their plan failed it back fired on them and brought the end of their government. Argentina today has learned from its mistake of underestimating the power of Great Britain and has given up hope of trying to invade the Falkland Islands again and so thinks if it just continues its claim to the Falklands maybe it will save them some face. Somethingoranother 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture, but you are not a scholar (neither am I) and this is not what we are discussing here. There are tons of pages of reputed scholars (both in Argentina and the UK) discussing every and each topic of the hyperoversupersimplificated analysis of your post, so I advice you to go there and see that every party has reasonable arguments to sustain its claim, and that the issue is a little bit more complicated than what you think.--Diegou 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest as a compromise that the map showing the Falkands as Argentine be displayed on the Spanish Wikipedia article and the map showing the Falklands not as Argentine be displayed on the English Wikipedia therefore following general readers' consensus on the issue. Somethingoranother 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, it is a terrible and incoherent solution. Anyway, you already changed the map alleging a "majority of consensus in discussion". What is that? Is there majority or there is consensus? I don't see any consensus here (IrishGuy, Guinnog and I were against your proposal), so maybe you are resorting to majority. In that case, you reached the result I was trying to avoid by my compromise solution: Some people agreeing with the final result, while others in complete disagreement. Fine for an encyclopedia, isn't it?

Oh, you threatened that "Anyone who reverts this change are breaking 3RR and NPOV, will be reported" (sic), so I realize now that you are not intending to reach any consensus, but only to push your POV. Your resort to 3RR and NPOV is completely wrong (please read Wikipedia policy before resorting to such threats), but I do not want to go on this silly discussion. Do whatever you want (well, you have already done it).--Diegou 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who advocates for the Falkland Islands to be considered in any way as part of Argentina is a fascist.

There is universal agreement among the residents of the Falkland Islands that this territory 1) is and 2) should be part of the UK. The UK also exercises the actual governmental authority over this territory, and maintains a military force to (rightfully) enforce that authority.

The only reason some Argentinians (and I don't care if it's 99% of them) consider this a "sensitive" issue is because they are fascist nationalists who want to impose their will on a foreign people, as is anyone who takes their side.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.2.173 (talk • contribs). 23 January 2007

Hello, I am from the Falklands and I can't believe this conversation. It is crazy to think anyone of you are Falklanders. We are senatative about our Sovereignty, but we do not hate Argentines or anyone else for that matter. Stop Aruging. (24.60.166.114 02:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Somethingoranother: You should press "refresh". For the last 15 years Chile has supported Argentina, and so has done every country in Latin America, Unless you consider the french piece of Canada a "latin" place.

Keithgreer said :"the Islands are not part of Argintina they are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" Im sorry but I dont understand. They have a legislative power without the power of changing the falkland's law, because they have to use the english law; they have an english governor and the supreme court is in england. Self-Governing? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest an organized vote of what choice to take just to clear it up with no resentments? I have experience seeing arguments in which one side constantly claims numeric superiority on the base of ambiguous answers, and one simple accountable voting is generally the best solution.

And if not, my opinion is that Falklands/Malvinas is indeed UK territory. I'm Argentinean, I grew up using maps in geography classes that had Falklands as part of our territory, and I've always believed it was moronic. Regardless of whatever claim we may or may not have, Falklands is right now under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, therefore, NOT OURS even if they were rightfully so (Which is an argument I’m not going to get into)

And on the fascist comment 71.52.2.173, please watch your goddamn mouth and don't make sweeping generalizations. Ephyon 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ephyon, this discussion already finished some time ago, with a result that I think is acceptable to everybody: The islands are shown with a color different from Argentina's, and it says that they are controlled by the UK and claimed by Argentina, all of that being true. --Diegou 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, let me be clear, this is my first time doing any comment on wikipedia, so pls be kind if I don't follow any implicit rule...

I just want to comment on something I just noticed on this article. In the second paragraph it is clearly stated that Argentina claims a slice of antarctica which is also claimed by Chile and UK, but the same conspicuous comment is not done in the articles of Chile and UK (OK, to be fair, at least in Chile's article it says that its a claim). I think that the same criteria should be followed for all articles, for example moving that information to the part referring to each province, in this case the province of "Tierra del Fuego, Antartida e Islas del Atlantico Sud" (in the case of UK's article you need to access the subarticle of the British Overseas Territories to find near the bottom some comment about the disputed claim).

Additionally, the map of Argentina shows the claimed antartic territory in a different color, while the map of the BOTs in the BOT article shows the antartic territory claimed by UK in the same color as all other BOT territories, no differentiation...

C'mon people, then if someone puts a map of Argentina with the political division of the country, which includes the south atlantic islands and antarctica (before anyone starts screaming about this, please note that I said political division, which is how the argentinian law distribute the territory), it is a big scandal...

Finally on this issue, I think that the best solution will be to use the offical map of each country on the article of each country. 69.249.68.167 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)SAM

I believe you should have placed it in the UK article, since denoting that a territory is not internationally accepted to belong to a country is not a minor peace of data. Here we are doing the right thing, clearly stating that those territories are under uneffective claims by Argentina. Thanks for your message. --Mariano(t/c) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree if you did not see it should have been added. However, after checking the UK article I have notice it is included in the main article, Under the Government and politics section, it is not an offical map though, Which should be added. Thanks for your message.(XGustaX 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

To something , I read up above, I hardly believe France supports either side of the Antartic claim since they also claim lands in the Antartic. Another thing I noticed we should up a bigger map of the Antartic claim on the main article. It is just a really small picture thats hard to see the clear boundaries of the claim. (24.60.175.168 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

ImageMap Hi, I made an Image Map for the politic map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Argentina_-_Pol%C3%ADtico_2.png) whoever holds the edit lock ov this page, feel free to contact me for the complete tag (I don't upload it myself because the page is locked for editing).Dgutson

Argentina's land area

I corrected the country's land area to its real one of 2,766,890, as it's usual that Argentines add the Falklands and other British islands to their maps, land area, etc.

Same goes to Antarctic lands, where no nation on earth has sovereignity in. It's just a protected area by Australia, Chile, Argentina, UK, US, Russia, Norway and France. But no one of these, including Argentina, has sovereignity rights upon this land, so you should not add the land area of Antarctica in Argentina's one (no one of the other nations does so). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theiasofia (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC).