Talk:Argentina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Argentina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Argentina has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Argentina is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Argentina as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Afrikaans,  Amharic or German language Wikipedias.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive Old comments for Argentina are archived:

Contents

[edit] Why are the unofficial estimations of illegal aliens deleted

Why?? Most sources unofficial sources estinate the same i put two sources Why were they deleted????????????

And why was deleted the information about the african illegal aliens?? There were sources. According to the government an african arrive everyday to Buenos Aires....

Because its not offical, thats why it was deleted. And no You must have misread the article , the article says that there were two Africans found on a ship and then Deported. This is completely different from what you stated before.



So? I said that unofficial surces cited that number several souces in fact.

And i wasn't speaking about another article.


Its not offical theres no need for what MSN thinks about the subject.

They are not from msn!! They are unofficial (not from the government) stadistics. They are in Clarin and Newsweek and some other sites.

No need to put what any Newspaper says its a government level issue not what the news papers think. Especially if it Clarin.

[edit] Information source

(Old comment, do not archive since it's useful to have it here at the top.)

-Mariano 09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. -- dockingmantalk 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)

[edit] 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.[1] 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.[2]. 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))

[edit] 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! -- dockingmantalk 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! -- dockingmantalk 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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).

[edit] Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

Cleanup Co-ordination
This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

  • the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
  • the article has multiple overlapping problems.
  • the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

[edit] Discussion


Yeah I am going to try to help. Let me see what I can do. (XGustaX 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Latter part of article needs major cleanup

Wow, the Sports section is a disaster in format, and the language section has been added with several uncited claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The dugout (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree I will try to help. (24.60.166.114 02:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Climate

The temperature of 51ºC recorded at Bahia Blanca is false! This year reached a maximum of 40ºC, not 51ºC. The true record high is 49.1ºC at Villa de María. http://www.meteonet.com.ar/?mod=biblioteca&id=94


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.122.117.46 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Anyone who reverts this change are breaking 3RR and NPOV, will be reported)

Does this threat make any sense at all? User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the English is terrible, and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Please see my comment above to such threat.--Diegou 05:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buenos Aires

Buenos Aires has been the capital of Argentina since 1880 (before that, the country had no capital yet.

Hi, I want to know if there is a discussion about this sentence or just someone put in there without explanation. Thank you. BorisDelMas 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote that; perhaps it could be rephrased. Check also Federalisation of Buenos Aires. --Mariano(t/c) 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. Federalisation of Buenos Aires was achieved in 1880, but it was the capital since the May Revolution BorisDelMas 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he/she meant that there was no 'de facto' capital. It was first declared capital in 1853, not at May revolution, and then again in 1860, but it was not unltil 1880 that the authorities finally installed in Buenos Aires, so it's hard to say it was the capital before that.
The sentence is nontheless poor and should be rewritten.--Mariano(t/c) 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Argentina 97% white figure

A couple of times I have tried to clarify the laughably inaccurate statistic of Argentina being "97% white". However, people keep reverting it back to showing it as fact.

People apparently don't seem to realize that the 97% white figure comes from the CIA Factbook, which can be very inaccurate when it comes to reporting percentages of ethnic groups in populations, especially when they are not reported by the country's government. In fact, a previous edition of the CIA Factbook (copied verbatim here: [3]) said that Argentina was 85% white and 15% mestizo. I have personally met several Argentines who consider themselves Mestizo; one was from Jujuy in the far northwest. In addition, there are large numbers of Mestizos and Indians from Paraguay and Bolivia living in the Buenos Aires area; Argentines say that Buenos Aires is now the largest Paraguayan city in the world.

The United States, meanwhile, is reported in the Factbook as "white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)". It leaves out all mention of the fact that most Hispanics are mestizo, and assumes they're all white. Thus, we have the absurd situation where Guatemalan Maya who live in the U.S. are called "white" by the CIA Factbook. Bottom line: the CIA Factbook is very slipshod when it comes to accuracy, and I do not know how they got the 97% figure or why, and we should use the older 85% figure. BGManofID 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to have some other sources.--Mariano(t/c) 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the CIA Factbook either, but as long as we identify the source, it's OK to quote the figure. If we remove the CIA Factbook we'll have a serious content dispute. I'd rather use INDEC figures and other studies, but someone will add the CIA Factbook again.
As for "large numbers of Mestizos and Indians from Paraguay and Bolivia living in the Buenos Aires area", I remember I quoted the numbers somewhere; there are less than 500,000 Paraguayans in the whole Capital + Greater Buenos Aires area, and less than 250,000 Bolivians, as of 2003, according to official sources. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we have to definite what is a white person BorisDelMas 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are are wrong I am sorry to say. The Offical census of Argentina DID conclude that Argentina is around 97 precent white.[4] That census you speak of was either an Estimate or not from the government of Argentina. If the CIA world fact book is so wrong why did the cite that Argentina was 85 precent in previous editions of the CIA world fact book? Pablo is right about your large numbers statement which is clearly an Opinion you have. So again I am sorry to say you are wrong I am taking the tag off because we have CLEAR edvience and just lay this issue to rest. There is no reason to Hate the CIA world fact book because its a VERY dependable source that is clearly based on research and not what the US thinks is "white" as you mean to put it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.175.168 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 February 2007.

Unfortunately INDEK cannot be trusted anymore —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Several things:
  1. We don't get to define. We must quote the figures and the sources (and the method used, if possible) and those things only. I believe that the CIA data are based on self-assumption of ethnic belonging, as in the US census I've heard (you're presented with several choices of "race" and you choose which "race" you belong to). Given that it's not strange that 97% of Argentinians call themselves "white" — for the general population, "mestizo" and "aboriginal" have been insults since the Spaniards first came.
  2. www.turismo.gov.ar doesn't cite the source of the "95% white" claim (note it says 95%, not 97%). The national census does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT ask for ethnic/racial identification.
  3. INDEC is indeed trustable. The unsubtle political manipulations of the last weeks should not taint its reputation. The fact has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the opposition, and moreover, inflation figures have nothing to do with the data of the 2001 census.
—Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


INDEC is VERY DEPENDABLE, Argentino. Pablo is right lets not get carried away. Just because they don't cite the source doesn't mean its not real. They must have taken it from the census which was done in 2001 as you know. This 85 precent figure also doesnt cite its source and I don't see anyone questioning its source. Even though you right that they have been insults its a general fact we know of the immigration to Argentina and its history so its easy to conclude that this figure is correct. Also Pablo if the National census does not ask for Racial/ethnic indenitfication how did this Magical 85 precent figure pop up? [00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]

Common people keep looking, you just need to find the right source, it's obvious that Argentina is not 97% white, you just need to visit the country to look it up for yourself. It's impossible that Bolivia that is right above Argentina has almost a full indigenous population and that Argentina has none. It’s ridiculous. The north of Argentina has a lot of indigenous peoples, but of course the government doesn't count them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.218.100 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


Your statement is flawed because those natives are so few compared to the total population. So it does make sense if you think in numbers and not how people look in one area. You have to look at the total Argentine population and for that the gran majority are White. Anyone should know this when looking at demographics! What does Bolivia have to do with Argentina? (24.60.175.168 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

What an idiot. What does Bolivia being above Argentina have anything to do with it's demographics? With that logic that means that just because Uruguay is close by Argentina is even whiter? please. Anyone visiting Argentina your right would see the country is Overwhelming of European decent no question about it. You are being too general only a few Isoilated places in Argentina have still Natives they are so few compared to the population of the rest of the country as the census says, only 400,000 comon. You need to get your logic strait. As for your mistrust in the CIA world fact book if you visit the FAQ section it states: ""What is The World Factbook’s source for a specific subject field? The Factbook staff uses many different sources to publish what we judge are the most reliable and consistent data for any particular category. Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources.""[5] so they obviously found this figure in various places as they state in there Policies and Procedures section of there Frequently Asked Questions. (XGustaX 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Most sources claim that Europeans make up 97% of the population, while grouping the remaining 3% are mestizo and indigenous. However, many claim these numbers distort reality. The Human Rights Documentation Center prepared a paper entitled “Racial Discrimination: The Record of Argentina” [[6]]. If you read this, you would probably agree that the figures are more likely around 85% white, 12% mestizo, and 3% indigenous. The document makes a critical point- The official figures may overestimate the white population, but they certainly reflect the normative perception that the country is predominantly white. Mariokempes 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Argentina is deff. overwhemlingly white. The article doesn't mention what you state. Since the indigenous population in the census only came up about 1 precent so you seem to overstate it. I would say Argentina is over 90 White. It is no dought that it is overwhelmingly white more then 90 precent most likely.(24.60.175.168 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Argentines

Argentines is both the Noun and Adjective form in English. Check here for the Dictionary defenition:

"–noun 1. a native or inhabitant of Argentina. 2. Argentina (usually prec. by the): They vacationed in the Argentine. –adjective 3. of or pertaining to Argentina."


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Argentine

Althought you can use Argentinian, it is more correct and proper to use Argentine. The word ends in a -tine like Florentine.(XGustaX 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC))


I reverted Pablo's edits because in most Encylopedi's they use Argentine. (24.60.175.168 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Argentinas black population

Why is it not mention in this article. There are 2 million black argentinans. "Hay casi dos millones de afrodescendientes en el país Miriam Gomes, vicepresidenta de la Sociedad Caboverdeana Argentina " He is say there are two million blacks in the country http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/specials/2007/esclavitud/newsid_6455000/6455537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dualldual (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

He says there are 2 million afrodescendientes in the country, meaning "of African descent". I don't know why this hasn't shown up in the data, perhaps the people have only a small amount of black ancestry, or otherwise don't consider themselves black.--Cúchullain t/c 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


You are right, Cichullain. There is no mention of this in the article becuase genetic tests suggest this was overstated estimate. Genetic tests say that 2 precent of Argentines have at least one African descent most of these had a a small amount of black ancestry, less than 10 percent.

Thank you.

Hope it answers your questions,(XGustaX 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Indigenous population

I've just updated the figures and quoted the official source (an INDEC press release of June 29, 2006). Please take into account that the "Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas" is still in process, therefore the figure could be a little higher. --Cinabrium 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/g/Talk%7EArgentina_6430.html"