Talk:Argentina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argentina was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: December 14, 2007
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Argentina article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
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.
Archive Old comments for Argentina are archived:

Contents

[edit] Trivia Section

This section is absolutely unnecessary and it is highly discouraged by wikipedia standards. I know Argentines feel proud about their country but let us keep it nice and neat. I will be summiting it for deletion if nobody takes the initiative. Likeminas (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[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] 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] Amerindian and Mestizo blood

I do not know why people keep erasing the part about Amerindian ancestry in Argentina.

I have been to Buenos Aires myself and I have seen lots of people with visible Indigenous features there. I would say that 20% of Buenos Aires's population has visible Amerindian ancestry.

If you go to LOS ANGELES you will think that not 20% but 60% of the population is MEXICAN (does it mean 60% of the population of USA is Mexican?) and most of the rest are blacks and asians with a very small white minority...the same goes to NEW YORK. In LONDON also 40% of the population is composed of non British immigrants from former colonies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.82 (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Many of the people you saw are Bolivian and Peruvian immigrants who came to Argentina in the '90's. Most of them are not Argentine citizens, and may be that's why they are not shown in the official census.--Damifb 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Buenos Aires is the most European city in Argentina. In the interior of the country, people of Indigenous features may be at least 50% of the population.

I do not know from where they get Argentina is 97% White. If it is a census, ok, we must respect it.

Hi. There's no census about this subject. Oficial census does not ask this. But if you ask people on an informal base I think 97% of them will respond "i'm white". Nobody here denies having indian ancestors but it's not a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Df2073 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But, in reality, there are millions of Argentineans with visible Amerindian features. It is important to put the information about genetic sources who found 56% of Argentineans have Amerindian ancestors.Opinoso 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Buenos Aires is not the most European city by far! Evidently you have never been to Rosario, Rio Gallegos, Ushuaia, Puerto Madryn or most of the Patagonian and Central areas of this country. I'd say that at least between 95-80% of the country's population is white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.173.170 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 July 2007

Dear unsigned- that is not the point. It is important to put all relevant information covering all valid viewpoints- including sources who found 56% of Argentineans have Amerindian ancestors... if this is reputable (on that point I cannot comment). Mariokempes 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Buenos Aires has lots of immigration from regional countries (Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay). That is what you are referring to.--Jersey Devil 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islas Malvinas

The name of the islands is not Falkland in english and Malvinas in Spanish. I have corrected that yesterday but today is wrong again! I don't know why it says 'the encyclopedia that everyone can edit' cuz this is not the first time I edit something and someone returns to the old revision.

Islas Malvinas is the name of the islands. Falkland is a name that the UK adoped to "their" islands. But there is not such a thing as In inglish and in Spansih.

Both names are international. If you have anything to tell me mail me at rama_pot_lomas@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.99.230 (talk) 14:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. I will accept your statement on common Spanish usage, but I think I can claim greater familiarity than yourself with English. They may well be called Malvinas in Spanish, but in English they are known only as the "Falkland Islands", or the "Falklands". Both names are not international. Any English publication will always refer to the islands as Falklands, and this, I'm afraid, is an article in an English encyclopedia.
And yes, it's the encyclopedia that everyone can edit - but since that applies to you, it applies to everyone else, too. It's also the 'encyclopedia that anyone can correct'. --Stephen Burnett 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that calling it Malvinas/Falklands or Falklands/Malvinas would be the best to keep everyone happy, and I will be a way to keep in mind that the islands are currently in dispute in the UN and there are no agreement to it's status. I have see many inglish works about the war and the islands an in many of them they are called by the british name of Falklands and the Spanish name of Malvinas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right. The name of the islands is Islas Malvinas, but UK like to call them "Falkand Islands". --201.235.130.133 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas is the Spanish name, while Falkland Islands is the game given to them in English, actually, the islands name was not declared official, neither Falklands (lame Spanish traductions) and Malvinas are the name of the islands. The UK gave them that name, but never declared it official. The islands are given the name they were given in different languages.

201.218.84.240 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When will Argentines understand that the whole English speaking world call them the Falklands - not just the UK!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the correct policy would be to call the islands by the name the inhabitants themselves use. As far as I understand, the inhabitants call them Falkland. So that should be the name used.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removed from GA list

I personally removed this article from the GA list. If anyone object this, please write down your reasons or opinions; I will put this article on assessment (i.e. GAR) with reasons so that it can reach a good consensus. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

when you remove GAss you should give at least 1 sstrong reason why you did so! Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was accurately removed from the GA list, as it now fails the GA critera:
  • The entire article's main problem is verifiability and original research, there are sections that go by without one footnote;
  • The article is also very poorly written, the history section is completly unbalanced with half of it focusing on the last 15 years and sections, such as Religion and Government, are not written in prose and they both read like a list of facts;
  • The music section does not need every single Argentinian band that has an article in the english Wiki mentioned, i mean honestly El Otro Yo? Miranda!?

hey!! hong long have you been outside Argentina?? Miranda and el otro yo are huge!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.64.86 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Many manual of style flaws, only full dates should be wikilinked, only one time in the same paragraph words should be wikilinked (in the Sector section, words such as "pig", "milk", "telephone", etc), many unnecessary external links in the main article that should be formatted into footnotes, etc,
  • The trivia section could be easily merged into the article;
  • The images could be more appropriate (an image of the country's official sport pato would be great, maybe something related to tango next to the music section?);
  • Also, before renominating, the article needs to be stable, so this whole developed or not developed war should be settled;

What is a good article? has the complete Good Article criteria. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Developed country

According to the developed country article, a country with a Gross National Income that surpasses 11, 116 US dollars is a developed country, Argentina's GNI surpasses that number and goes over, meaning that Argentina is developed and also, Argentina's GDP (PPP) per capita surpasses the 12,000 est. US dollars, the required number for developed country in income numbers so, I have three figures at my favor.

  • Its high GDP per capita and also its very high HDI which although does not surpasses .900 goes similar to that of Portugal right now, and Portugal is a developed country, and Argentina's industry is that heavy as well. I think its even heavier than that of Portugal.
  • A larger TOTAL GDP maybe the second largest in the south cone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.64.177 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Will someone reply, the Argentine Nation is a developed country, like Italy, or Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.179 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Argentina exhibits (and has usually shown in the past) some indicators as a developed country, but it is not usually included in the developed country category, because it suffered a heavy process of des-industrialization approximately between 1975-1990. Its HDI index of 0.869 is high, but not as high as that of "advanced economies" (over 0.9), and its GINI (unequality index) is too high (52.8) for a developed country. In fact, none of the institutions mentioned in the Developed country article include Argentina among the developed countries (although quite probably it was one at some point in the 20th century, and it may become a developed country again, if it solves some of its problems, but not yet.) Daniel_C (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of true, Argentina has the look, feel and almost all the things of a developed country, however, I think that you are right since that of the des-industrialization process it's true but Argentina still exhibits the exact appeareance of a developed coutry, when I got to Argentina I rarely found it more "developed" than Italy.

I think that this country just lacks the, developed industrial infraestructure, but if no des-industrialization ever happened, it would have been with the G8 right now instead of Italy.

But its HDI is not excuse however, Portugal's or Czech Republic's HDI's classified both of them as developed countries, and both countries are under 0.9 in their HDI.

As you can see, China does not have an HDI over even 0.8 and it has overpowered the UK, France and Japan I think the standard of living does not make the country developed, but it has to do more with the industrial advancements.

this is fully wrong. if so, let's take new zealand out the list of developed, since they have none industrial advencement. and China, by the way NOT A DEVELOPED NATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

201.218.79.62 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that Argentina is a developed country based on personal comparisons and making judgment calls on economic indicators violates: WP:NOR. Moreover, his/her claim on GDP is incorrect, as he is looking at GDP per capita at purchasing power parity, whereas the World Bank uses GDP PPP in nominal (real) terms to classify middle-income from high-income countries (and Argentina's GDP per capita in real terms is around $6000 USD). Moreover, all major important economic associations classify Argentina as a:
The anonymous user must not engage in WP:OR, but must provide reliable sources to substantiate his/her claim. The source above contradict his claim, and therefore, the article must be changed to accurately state that Argentina is a developing country and/or a "secondary emerging country". --the Dúnadan 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to ask something, could you give me a list of the Spanish speaking countries which are "developed"?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is your source. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?Country=AR&IndicatorID=140 though it does not specify "developed country" it gives a description of the GNI per capita, which, if surpasses 11,400 makes the country "developed" though this would mean that anomalies exist between this one is the fact that Argentina is "developed" but no industrialized, it also leaves the space of the income inequality, however, it means that Argentina is developed at the end.

The anomalies would mean that the country is, in standards of living "developed" but that it lacks a developed industry. Since the anomalies combine with the GNI and see if they are developing.

The article said: "However, when measuring using GNI, anomalies may exist and the country could be either considered developing, developed, or even both.

However, these anomalies are present in other developed countries.

201.218.79.62 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is precisely that your sourced does not specify "developed country", and other sources do specify that Argentina is not a developed country". You are using the GDP figure to make a novel synthesis, which is OR in WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A question, is South Africa a developed country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and that is irrelevant to whether or not Argentina is. You do not have a source that says Argentina is developed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Carl.bunderson, South Africa's status is irrelevant to our discussion. The link provided by the anon simply reports Argentina's GNI per capita, not that Argentina is a developed country. Like Carl said, the anon is making a novel synthesis (WP:OR), and furthermore, a wrong novel synthesis. He based his OR on Argentina's GDP per capita in PPP (as the link shows) and then cites the threshold of income given in the article: developed country. First of all, Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source for itself; secondly the World Bank classifies countries according to GNI per capita in nominal terms [1], not in purchasing power parity (PPP) which as an artificial exchange rate based on differences in purchasing power. (More accurately, the WB uses the Altas Method which is a three-year average of the nominal exchange rates). Argentina's GDP in nominal terms is $5,150, (2006, the most recent figure provided by the WB) well below the threshold of $11,116. Therefore, the World Bank does not classify Argentina as an advanced developed country, but as an upper-middle income country.[2].--the Dúnadan 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This,[1] gives you all you need to know, Argentina is a high income country, while South Africa, is Upper Middle. Inferior to Argentina. 201.218.79.62 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop changing the article, or it will be blocked. Please read the links above. Please read the sources above. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a valid source, you must cite other secondary independents sources. The sources above contradict your claim. You are engaging in WP:OR, prohibited by Wikipedia's guidelines. --the Dúnadan 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry for mistaking everything, but is still not a developing country Argentina is currently at an estimate of two years from full development and may even surpass France in that period, but Argentina WAS DEVELOPED at a certain time, this currently leaves it as a "re-developing" country, but currently it has "developed" stats, just, the problem is that it has not yet reached the knowledge of classifying institutions.

This sources proves my point, since Spain has "ever" been developed, the source states Argentina reaching Spain, so it shows Argentina "in the same league" as Spain.

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any source that states that Argentina is a developed country, while three sources state clearly that Argentina is a developing country. You have not provided any source, the picture above does not have any headers and refers to -arguably- GDP per capita in PPP, which is not used by the World Bank to classify countries: you are confusing GNI in nominal terms with PPP terms. Please read the sources above. Opinions aside, you need to provide a reputable valid source to substantiate your claims. If your claims have not reached "the knowledge of classifying institutions" (of which the most recent is 2007!), then you are engaging in WP:OR and WP:3RR. You have been already warned to stop reverting. --the Dúnadan 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But, a question, why is South Africa a developed country if its stats are inferior to Argentina's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting'. You have been warned plenty of times. You cannot compare statistics because you are comparing the wrong statistics. It doesn't matter what you can argue and compare, but what can be proved with sources. --the Dúnadan 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the statistics for both countries.

Argentina: |GDP_PPP_year = 2007 |GDP_PPP = $671.508 billion |GDP_PPP_rank = 18th |GDP_PPP_per_capita = $17,062 |GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 47th |GDP_nominal = $212.702 billion |GDP_nominal_rank = 31st |GDP_nominal_year = 2005 |GDP_nominal_per_capita = $6,548 |GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 66th |HDI_year = 2007 |HDI = 869 ▲ |GNI per capita (nominal) = 3,650

South Africa |GDP_PPP_year = 2007 |GDP_PPP = $587.5 billion ▲ |GDP_PPP_rank = 18th |GDP_PPP_per_capita = $13,300 ▲ |GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 56th |GDP_nominal = 255.272 billion |GDP_nominal_rank = 29th |GDP_nominal_year = 2007 |GDP_nominal_per_capita = $5,724 |GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 70th |Gini = 57.8 |Gini_year = 2000 |Gini_category = high |footnotes = |HDI_year = 2007 |HDI = 0.674 ▲ |GNI per capita (nominal) = 2,780

Source: [4]

From South Africa article: In many respects, South Africa can be considered a developed country.[citation needed] However, advanced development is significantly localised around four areas: Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and Pretoria/Johannesburg. Beyond these four economic centres, development is marginal and poverty is still prevalent despite government efforts. Consequently the vast majority of South Africans are poor. However, key marginal areas have experienced rapid growth recently. Such areas include: Mossel Bay to Plettenberg Bay; Rustenburg area; Nelspruit area; Bloemfontein; Cape West Coast; KwaZulu-Natal North Coast amongst others.

Hope this helps........ Argentina indeed surpasses South Africa in its economical statistics. Cocoliras (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of comparison (if at all, you prove that South Africa is a developing country, but not that Argentina isn't one, considering the situation in the provinces of Misiones, Salta, Jujuy, Mendoza and many other northern provinces). Moreover you are abusing your sources, using Wikipedia and then citing another source that does not prove what you claim (your source states that Argentina's GDP per capita is $3,650; if you want to use this source, I'd be happy to include this figure in the introductory paragraph).
Please read WP:OR, to familiarize yourself with the policy. You can argue your opinion all you want, but four reputable sources (IMF, CIA, World Bank and FTSE) have been cited and all four prove that Argentina is a developing country. Whenever these, or other equally reputable sources, state that Argentina is a developed country (or a dual [sic] country), then you and/or the anon user can edit the article accordingly. But you cannot use your own research and/or comparisons because that violates WP:OR: we are not experts in economics, so our opinions or comparisons do not matter, only reputable and verifiable sources can be used. --the Dúnadan 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

South Africa gives a possibly clear example of what Argentina is. Since South Africa is a developed country and its levels of Human Development look lower than Argentina. The user may be using this to reach the point that if South Africa is a developed country, Argentina must.

Actually, that idea in the SA article does not have any source or support. South Africa's article cut says the next;

In many respects, South Africa can be considered a developed country.[CITATION NEEDED] However, advanced development is significantly localised around four areas: Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and Pretoria/Johannesburg. Beyond these four economic centres, development is marginal and poverty is still prevalent despite government efforts. Consequently the vast majority of South Africans are poor. However, key marginal areas have experienced rapid growth recently. Such areas include: Mossel Bay to Plettenberg Bay; Rustenburg area; Nelspruit area; Bloemfontein; Cape West Coast; KwaZulu-Natal North Coast amongst others.

That may be incorrect, however, both Africa and Argentina exhibits 'developed' characteristics. If you mean by Dual[sic] a dual-based country like I though (developed and developing) then you may be right. Cocoliras (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading what other users have been telling you and/or the anon user? Stop comparing Argentina with South Africa. That does not prove your point. You need to cite reputable sources that clearly state that Argentina is a developed country. No single source says that, since Argentina, as recognized by all economist in reputable institutions is a developing nation. You and/or the anon user have violated WP:OR, WP:3RR and your reiterated reversions and insistence on inserting your OR is WP:POVPUSH and border on WP:Vandalism. Please stop. --the Dúnadan 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Price Purchase Parity is better than GNI because it takes into account currency fluctuations which Argentina is especially sensitive too. The Argentine Peso is kept artificially low by the government to boost exports so the GNI is around $7 000 but PPP adjusted (averaged according to purchasing power) is closer to $16 000. This is reflected in the higher standard of living compared to other Latin American nations as shown by the HDI index.

The United States is Argentina's second largest trading partner but it only accounts for 15% of all trade. So 85% is with other countries like Brazil and China where the Peso goes further. That's compared to Mexico which trades mostly with the USA and is essentially a low cost manufacturing base. Hence the lack of difference in Mexican GNI and PPP GDP figures.

If you're inferring that PPP GDP isn't reliable then that's incorrect. It's the other way around, nominal GNI figures do not account for purchasing power relative to other countries. Most sources such as the CIA World factbook and IMF state the PPP figure. The World bank use the nominal GNI figure.

Both figures are actually useful depending on the circumstances. Nominal GNI are used mostly by North American institutions because they're interest lies in national income compared to the US economy. The rest of the world would want to know the PPP figure.

Argentina is measured as an 'Upper middle income nation' by the World Bank and the country does have a developed manufacturing, agricultural and educational infrastructure but it's very poor credit rating (similar to Libya) and high corruption within both the private and government sectors are not to the standard of a developed nation.

This alone doesn't mean that the country isn't developed. Also, the World Bank's own site states that "GNI does not, by itself, constitute or measure welfare or success in development".[5]

Argentina according to both standard of living and GDP is more developed than most countries of the Americas except the USA and Canada and around the same level of development of poorer OECD nations such as Portugal, Greece and Poland which are all generally considered developed nations, just not wealthy.

As most developing countries are very poor and have a lack of developed infrustructure, Argentina is classed as a either a newly industrialised economy or emerging market. Not quite as developed as first world nations but outpacing other developing nations. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

talk:Coldheartedman|talk]]) 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I never intended to get into economic details, since I'm not trying to prove a point, but demanding sources to substantiate the preposterious claims being pushed by some users. I will, however, defend my edits on both grounds: through Wikipedia policy and through economic argumentation.
No, PPP is not better than using nominal rates, but a different way of presenting a differnet picture. PPP is created with a small set of goods. That is why many economist dislike PPP, and continuous revisions are being made to recalculate what an artificial "purchasing power" is (the most recent reduced China's and India's GDP by a very significant percentage)[6]. Secondly, Argentina is an open economy and an active participant of international trade, which is done not in an inexistent parity but he existing exchange parity. Whether it is unfinished goods (the largest percentage of trade) or finished goods, the revenues obtained that sustain the companies -and salaries- are received in nominal exchange rates, not artificial non-existing parities. PPP and nominal exchange rates both offer different pictures of the economy. That is why CIA decided to adopt the nominal figures along with the PPP. For an overview of the limitations of both indicators see [7]
Secondly, I never implied that GDP PPP is wrong. But it is not the measure used by the World Bank or any other financial institution to classify developed countires. Therefore, using it to make a claim contradicting reliable sources is, not only WP:OR but an erroneous OR.
You are mistaking "standard of living" with "human development". High HDI does not imply economic development, and a high GDP per capita does not imply status of development. Many countries in the Middle East show very high levels of both, and yet unequal opportunities and uneven distribution of income -like Argentina- make them developing nations as well. Infrastructure is conducive to economic growth but does not guarantee it. And Argentina lags behind in infrastructure compared to OECD countries with merely 734 km. of expressways connecting only a few of the major cities (compare the 6,335 km of Mexican expressways, one of the poorest OECD's members). Railway communications have not been modernized. Economic growth is highly centralized in the Capital Federal, whereas poverty affects 57% of the population in northern provinces[8].
Your claim that Argentina is the most developed country in the Americas after the US and Canada is again an unsubstantiated claim, and similar claims have been made at Chile, Uruguay, Puerto Rico (the closest to reality), Costa Rica and Mexico, while they debase other countries, just as you did Mexico and the anon did South Africa. But again, it doesn't matter on how you interpret data, but on what economists say. Argentina is classified as a developing nation by all pertinent authorities,[9], [10], [[11] or as a secondary emerging economy (not even an "advanced emerging economy")[12]. Is Argentina a newly industrialized country? So are Turkey, Brazil, China, India and the Philippines, all developing nations.
Criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "truth" (or rather, what you perceive to be the "truth" or what I perceive to be truth) but verifiability. If you find a reputable economic or research institution that classifies Argentina as a "developed country, rivaling European countries" then you might add the claim. Otherwise, it must be deleted to comply with Wikipedia's policies and standards.
--the Dúnadan 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed 'Developing' because it's a broad indicator of little value. Unless Argentina is a special case in contrast to other country pages there is no reason to state Argentina is 'developing' as 80% of the world is developing according to the IMF. I've change the sentence to bring it in line with other Latin American country pages such as Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and others. The fact that Argentina has the highest level of GDP and HDI index figure in Latin America is not debatable. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Emerging economies are by nature developing economies. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I won't debate that, emerging economies are indeed developing, so the introduction seems fine to me, with the exception that GDP per capita is the highest if measured in purchasing power parity. (Usually, 'income per capita refers to Gross National Income, and not to Gross Domestic Product, see the World Bank's notes on both indicators too).
As for your unilateral removal of the perfectly sourced ethnicity paragraph, I reinserted it. There was a debate and a consensus was reached. Should you wish to reopen the debate, according to WP:Consensus, you must discuss it first to obtain a new consensus. If you do not trust the DNA test, you must bring equally valid reputable sources (i.e. other DNA tests) that contradict the results. Calling it pseudo-science on personal grounds, like you did in Demographics of Argentina when you deleted it, is not enough to comply with WP:Verifiability.
--the Dúnadan 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the GDP PPP per capita: you say this number is around the 17.000 US Dollar and then you use the IMF as a reference, but if go to the IMF web site and ask for the specific studies, you will see that the Argentinian GDP PPP per capita is about the 13.000 US Dollar.So please use the correct reference (I don't think there is one) or just adjust the number to the REALITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.58.2 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not with the figure. The FMI had a previous figure of $16,000+ GDP PPP per capita, but now has revised it to $13,000, even though GDP per capita (in nominal terms) increased. This is an example of why we need the two figures. PPP (Purchasing power parity) is a non-existing exchange parity; it is a calculation that tries to compare the purchasing power that a dollar has in different countries (i.e. $1 dollar buys more of X in Argentina than in the United States, and therefore, the "purchasing power" parity is lower than the official exchange rate). This PPP is being constantly revised due to inflation—and Argentina has experienced high inflation in recent years—which therefore leads to a lower purchasing power, even if nominal GDP per capita actually increased to almost $7,000 (this one is based on actual parities or exchange rates). So, to make the story short, the 13,000 figure is right, and it is the most updated one. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys i dont really think Argentina is a developed country at all...i never heard it in any article as developed, and to write in that is developed would just be truly unrealistic,lets stick to the facts!and is the PPP 13,000 or 18,000?last week it was 13,000 so why now 18,000?Supposely there is no developed country yet in L.A...the closest ones are Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Mexico! EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Study

I personally propose to skip the genetic study, first: because it is not oficial, second because according to the article only 320 persons (out of 40 millon) of 9 provinces ( Argentina has 23 provinces) were included in the study, so this amount of people does not represent the whole country, if we calculate the percentage of 300 people over 40 millon we get 0.000075%...I would say that is not a figure of the total population it is just a posible estimation which I think are not considered in worldwide encyclopedias. I was going to erase this part of the article but I wanted to hear someone's opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale4117 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the above comment. First, what is "official"? Genetic studies are not conducted by the government but by scientists. Secondly, statistically speaking, the size of the sample is irrelevant to our case: whatever assumptions were taken to prove Gaussian normality (or lack thereof), so as to select a random sample of that size, is a discussion that belongs to the scientific realm. Most studies are valid if the sample is randomnly and correctly selected with as few as 30 individuals if Gaussian normality is assumed (or proved). This is really not the place to explain the intricacies of Statistic analysis, and their validity. Please review a book concerning sample selection. If necessary, read the original paper to understand their sample selection method. Discarding a scientific paper with personal opinions is unacceptable in Wikipedia. In fact, the genetic study was not discarded in es:Argentina or es:Demografía de Argentina and it was thoroughly discussed. --the Dúnadan 16:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Scientists are not infallible which is why there is a peer review process by which studies are determined to be of any scientific value. Sample sizes are irrelevant? Never heard that before. You seem to have a lot of opinions as to the validity of that particularly study but nothing to back it up. You cannot read the original paper because it's unpublished. By all means, provide a link to this 'original paper' so to let others judge for themselves. -Coldheartedman (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have missunderstood me because I am not saying that the study is wrong or something like that I am just saying that it should be considered as an estimation thats all. Besise this is not the only study made, there are like 5 more:[13],[14] in which one study says the european contribution was 70% other 80% and others only take account the african "extint" composition so why not considering other studies besise only this one?

Please review the archive as this issue has already been discussed, and it was agreed to keep this information since it is verifiable and informative. Before you delete it, you must obtain the consensus of the editors, and up to this point you don't have it. I oppose its deletion, since it is a scientific study conducted by an Argentine university to refer to the entire country. The first source you provide refers exclusively to the city of Buenos Aires, and not to the entire country, so it cannot be used to disqualify the first one. The second one simply says that there is "large variance" but does not specify if the variance is "regionally", "across individuals" much less in "genetic studies" as you imply. Therefore, your two sources do not substantiate your point, at best, they complement it. Please do not delete perfectly verifiable content, and especially without the consensus of the editors. --the Dúnadan 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The current Demography (ethnicity) section as it stands is fine IMO. It's understandable and to the point with no scientific gibberish. However, people reading this page have a right to know as to the scientific validity of a mentioned study. Best practice dictates only reliable references be used and to keep the page simple and to the point which is topical considering this page has recently been removed from the good article list. -Coldheartedman (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is the second time I ask you to please stop reverting and deleting verifiable sources without sources to back up your claims. If you continue with this thread I will get the attention of an administrator to this issue. Please know that:
  • You have not been able to provide any source that claims that a valid scientific study is "gibberish". Calling it gibberish on personal grounds is not enough. You must provide an equally reliable source if you with to disqualify a scientific study. You are not a scientist, neither I am. Wikipedia reports what the scientific community says. If there are concerns, these concerns must come from the scientific community itself, not based on your own opinions. That is why the genetic study was kept at the Spanish Wikipedia.You are disqualifying references and naming them "unreliable" just based on your own personal opinion. Please provide reliable sources to back up your preposterous claim, or stop reverting. Please read: WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE.
  • Being removed from the Good article list had nothing to do with the demographic section. If at all, deleting perfectly sourced information based on personal opinions diminished the quality of the article. Inserting personal opinions such as "Argentina is a developed country on par with France", while deleting sources such as the World Bank, the IMF and the CIA Factbook that stated otherwise, also diminished the quality of the article.
--the Dúnadan 03:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
PS, as for the FTSE Country Classification, please read the source thoroughly. They are not classifying "stock markets". They are classifying countries based on economic size, wealth, quality of markets as well as their depth and breadth.[15] Their classification is provided for stock-market investors, so that they decide how strong the country is before they invest in their stock market (and gauge possible collapses in the economy that would entail a collapse in the stock market). They are not classifying the stock-market themselves (i.e. they are not saying "secondary emergent stock market", but a "secondary emergent country" based on the four factors above).
--the Dúnadan 03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all I did not revert the part until you changed it, someone else would have done it check in the history and you will realize that it wasn't me who changed the article. The day after I posted the request in this talk page the article was changed and I thought "someone have read my request and change the article" then you appeared (since you have a serious problem with this part of the article) and edited it back. Besise your edition says the amerindian admixture is present in close of 56% of the population, but oficially [16] says 56% of the population has at least one amerindian ancestor including people with european background, taken account in the 56%, which is more clear to read. I personally don't know why you keep changing this article and as I read below this is not the first time you are discussing about this and other users mentioned to you that in canada and the united states there had made studies like this one but they have decided not to add it to their main articles. And finally the study which I mentioned to you is not only in buenos aires look at "Composicion Etnica de Argentina" in the study parts and you will see that there are a lot of studys refering the whole country. Salu2 a Catalunya..

--Ale4117 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a "serious problem" with that part of the article, but I do have a "serious problem" with users (registered or otherwise) who delete, change or discredit verifiable primary sources based on personal opinions, and I am not saying that you are such a user, but since you mention that it is not the first time that "I" discuss it (in reality, several users joined me), you should take the time to evaluate their arguments thoroughly, before implying that I have "problems" with a section. I think other users actually have "problems" with the content proved by those genetic studies.
Now, I read the link you provided, and I assume you did so too. Let me cite/translate what it says, referring to the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires:
"In this way, considering the results as a whole, it has been proven that in the sample in question, more than fifty percent of the samples exhibit mitochondrial halogroups [which are] characteristic of the original populations [i.e. Amerindian], 52% in the sample of the Central Region [of Argentina], 56% in the Sample of the South South-West and 66% in the region North North East. On the other hand, 20% exhibit the "T" variant, characteristic of the original populations at the DYS199 locus. The detection of both original [i.e. Amerindian] lineages, both through through the father and the mother side, is restricted to a 10%. The population that does [not] present any Amerindian contribution in the Central Region is 43%, in the South South West is 37% and in the North North-East is 27%. In average, less than 40% (36.4%) of the population exhibits no Amerindian lineage on both sides, [lineages] which could be European, Asiatic or African."
"The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote, emphasis mine).
Now, see the "tone" of what you wrote [emphasis mine]:
"A study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires has estimated that approximately 56% of the population has at least one Amerindian ancestor, though this takes into account many individuals of primarily European background with distant indigenous ancestry."
Are you really citing what the article says? I really think the guys at Clarín did a better job at interpreting the results.[17]. But anyway, at least the information is still in the article.
Please note, I repeat, that scientific studies are not "official" (by which you mean accepted by the government). Politicians are not experts in genetics, geneticists are the experts, and politicians cannot say whether a scientific proof is valid or not, only scientists can. I think the authors of es:Composición genética de Argentina did an extraordinary job in that article. I wish we could make a similar job here at the English Wikipedia. I think part of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia in Latin American articles is that not all the population is properly represented, which has led to constant overstatements of the "White" population of their countries (and even to prove who has more "Whites"), as I have seen in the articles of Chile, Mexico, Brazil, even Latin Americans, and the like.
--the Dúnadan 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You do have a serious problem specially with me, if not why did you change the article again? If you don't have a problem you would leave it just the way it was, besise you tell me that I deleted or changed the article, when the only person that changed everyday the article was you I don't care if you and your "friends" think the same, I will be pleased to talk or argue (as you wish) with you all the time you want because I will always be here. Not everybody thinks the same as you, and having a group of "friends" doesn't give you the power to control the article you are not the king of it or of wikipedia this is a dictionary working as a community where everybody disscuss their ideas and then finally get to a decision. I hope that arguements like this one don't happen again. Salu2

--Ale4117 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, read WP:Etiquette and avoid criticizing other users. Maybe you didn't read the above, so I suggest you read it again. A summary is: I do not have a problem with you (as a user/person), but I do have a problem when any user (you or anyone) ignore perfectly reliable sources because those users have a problem with the content of it. You provided a source, and I used your own source and cited verbatim what it said. Yet, you don't like it. If you don't, you need to provide something else besides your opinion and your criticism towards users. If you are pleased to talk or argue, then talk or argue by bringing reliable sources to prove your claim. So far, you've brought one source, which is the source I used. So, I ask you, why do you have a problem with this issue?
--the Dúnadan 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I am not criticizing anyone. Why don't we make an agreement, to stop fighting like children... the article as you edited its ok as you see I haven't told you anything about it but let's leave it as it was, below the article and we have a truce.ok?

--Ale4117 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't find any compelling reason why relevant information pertaining to ethnicity and related to the very first sentence in the Ethnicity section should be relegated to the bottom of the article. Is there a particular reason for this?--the Dúnadan 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Third Opinion
This was a hard one to follow, but I find myself agreeing with Dunadan. Ale4117 hasn't shown any conclusive, reliable proof that the studies being cited and included by Dunadan are misleading, inaccurate, or in some way invalid. There is also no reason to move the material to a different location (as in this diff); it works better directly after the other genetics information. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Stick to what reliable sources state. Editors should avoid using their own feelings or opinions in articles. If there are multiple sources that provide multiple conclusions, they should be cited with the article presenting them in appropriate proportion. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout of Article

Hey everyone, Moebiusuibeom here, took the liberty of enhancing «image wise» the Layout of Article, witch suffered from

  • overcrowding and clutter of images
  • side by side images
  • sections with unrelated images
  • unbalanced layout
  • inconsistent sizing of images and
  • broken up sections

Yes, I know, i did NOT inform of changes but it needed a quick fix, did the same for Buenos Aires.

I believe it now looks more encyclopedic, structurally balanced and "visually friendly", please!, any disagreements let me know.

Lets reposition Argentina as a was a good article nominee – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job; it looks a lot better. Although some section have to many pictures (like "Cities and Metropolitan Areas"), whereas other sections (most notably "Government") do not. I think taking 2 pics of the over-crowded sections and adding a couple on the empty sections (like the Casa Rosada for the Gov't Section) would be a good idea.
Also, with the aim of repositioning Argentina as a "good article", I also suggest trying to find references or sources for the many [citation needed] all throughout the article. I believe there are even more claims that as of now have not been challenged and that also do need a source. I also think the history section should be restructured; it is almost entirely focused on the last 30 years; Argentina has a rich history dating back to Pre-Colombian times, and a more comprehensive review of the developments of the 19th and early 20th centuries would enhance the quality of that section and the article. That's my five cents. --the Dúnadan 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, the Argentine government should support Roman Catholicism. However, this does not imply that it is the official religion of the Argentine Republic, nor does it imply that people working in the government should have this faith.

Delete this passage. It's opinionated, argumentative, incorrect, and irrelevant. --76.217.92.133 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Argentine constitution does say that the government should support Catholicism, then I think it is relevant to the Politic section. I will do some research on the issue. --the Dúnadan 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. With all due respect, the layout of the article is a mess. Too much work should be done to raise the level of that article to a possible featured article in the future. I will do some research and propose some changes here before proceeding with editing. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the article needs to be summarised. It's simply too big. Reelvant information should be inserted in specific articles.--Mhsb (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Site Tampering

As I was reviewing the Article for Argentina, I noticed that someone has maliciously tampered with the religion section. I do not know what is supposed to replace the derogatory terms so I cannot make any recommendations for changes.Kpiskin (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the problem, can you be more specific about what you're refering to as "derogatory"? dockingmantalk 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's fine now; must have been fixed for fine to start with. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Dont they speak welsh and hebrew? Add that to the list.Fila934NorthBayTrain (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Jewish immigrants who came here in the late XIX century and early spoke Idish, not Hebrew. I do know a few people here who speak Hebrew, but it's a language they have learned at school or a an educational institute, not a language they speak at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.188.214 (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Can't we undo this article to the past "Good Article" version? Would that work? I'm telling you because I have no idea what is the time edits last in wikipedia's database.--J.C. (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia remain in the page history permanently, so technically speaking we can always revert to any previous version. However, the article may have been removed from GA status due to changes in the GA standards or because the article may not have met the standards in the first place, as opposed to a decrease in the article's quality. If that is the case, reverting back to the GA version would not help, and in fact it could damage the article's quality. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And if the GA standards haven't changed would it work?--J.C. (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be complicated. As all articles in the encyclopedia continue to grow and improve in quality, what was considered a "good article" (or a "featured article"), after reassessment (which does not necessarily mean that GA or FA standards changed) may no longer be so. Two years ago a small article could have easily passed the GA or FA test, since in comparison with other articles in Wikipedia, it was far better.
Even if it was the case that some recent editions may have damaged the quality of the article, many editions have actually increased the accuracy or expanded the content of other sections. To revert both good and bad editions would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many editors will have to reinsert their "good" edits, or what they consider to be "good" edits, and we are back to square one in 4 months. I rather recommend polishing what we already have based on the criteria set forth for a GA. That way, the article will be even better than what it was before it lost GA status.
--the Dúnadan 04:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, alright then. So it's better to follow expanding the article. You helped understand better how wikipedia works. Thanks--J.C. (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gross Domestic Product (At Power Purchasing Parity)

Why does this article demostrates a different GDP(PPP) value every week. Last week it was at 13,000 and now at 18,000? I heard a couple of months ago that chile had the highest GDP(PPP) in the Latin American Countries and it only has a little bit pass the 13,000$ mark so how come argentina is so high?a country with a 18,000$ USD PPP is surely a developed country, while argentina truly isn't(according to articles). So whats the deal?who is changing it every time?EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) You are RIGHT....The numbers are for 2013!!!! not for 2007. Argentina just has a per capita income of 13.000 USD according to both the CIA Factbook and the IMF.

Please CORRECT that: it is 13,000 USD, not 18,000 (this is just an IMF estimate for 2013, as can be read in the link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.82 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To be considered a developed country Argentina should have a much higher number of patent filings in the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization): while the USA filed 52,000 new patents in 2007, Japan 27,000 new patents, Germany 18,000 new patents, Britain 5,000 new patents, Italy 3,000 new patents, Spain 1,000 new patents (the European Union 46,000 new patents).....Argentina, just 20!!!!!! Not a developed nation.

[edit] Mention to chile in article's introduction

"Argentina has the highest Human Development Index level and the second highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power parity in Latin America after its neighbor Chile[6] and its total national GDP is the 23rd largest in the world.[7][8]"

i think that the part where it says "after it's neighbor Chile" is unnecesary since this article is about argentina and not about chilean economic performance or it's latest developments. on top of that, if you consider this as relevant, in chile's article it should say that is "the second most developed country by HDI after it's neighbor argentina" which it doesnt. hope tangerine is happy now and have something interesting to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- Alexf42 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I took out the reference to Chile, as it seemed superfluous to me. There is also no need to have three Wikilinks to Chile in the opening page of the article. EP 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. --the Dúnadan 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Density

What happened to the pop. density? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinneeb (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)