Talk:List of heads of state of Argentina

"Acting" is not an adequate link for de facto presidents. I think this formulation should be replaced by "de facto". Andres 15:27, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The correct form seems to be Farrell, not Farrel. I'll make the change. Andres 16:16, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Puerta - Caamaño Presidencies December 2001

Ramón Puerta and Eduardo Caamaño were never actually Presidents of Argentina. Puerta was the "Presidente Provisional del Senado" (Provisional President of the Senate) at the time of the resignation of President Fernando de la Rúa, and Camaño was "Presidente de la Cámara de Diputados" (President of the Lower House") when Rodríguez Saa resigned.

According to the Argentine law (Ley de Acefalía), in case of death or resignation of the President, the VicePresident is to be charged President. Nonetheless, nor De la Rua nor Rodríguez Saa had Vicepresidents at the time. In that case, (always according to Argentine law), the Provisional President of the Senate, or if he she ressigns/dies, the President of the Lower House, has to Provisional assume the Executive power. But these two do not become "President". They act as "Provisional President of the Senate, in exercise of the Executive Power", and the law orders them to call for general elections as soon as possible.

Therefore, Puerta and Caamaño were never Presidents of the country, and their inclusion in the Argentine Presidents list is mistaken.

The media, at the time, called them "presidents", but that is not correct. It would be like calling Cheney "President" everytime that Bush is outside the US, just because in that moment Cheney exercises the Executive branch in the country.

I would suggest to take out Puerta's and Camaño's names form the Argentine Presidents list, as that is a mistake. Otherwise, you should add a reference for this (or any other) further explanation of the issue.

Martin. 29.1.04

Is it correct to call them 'acting presidents'? Andres 20:21, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

State leaders by year

I'm currently working on the State leaders by year project, but there seems to be a period without any formal head of state frome 1820 to 1826. Any ideas how Argentina should be listed for this time period? Fornadan (t) 11:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Improving the list

In the early sections it may make sense to keep separate lists of a few entries, Juntas, triumvirates, unipersonal offices, lack of national heads of state, etc; are completely different things. However, since Mitre there's little need to keep those small lists constantly "interrupted" by pieces of text. From that point, it should be a single table. This may be done with a system similar to the one used at List of Presidents of Venezuela, wich is a featured list (a status this list should aspire to achieve as well). I haven't choose that specific list randomly: besides being featured, Venezuela also has a history of legal presidents and presidents that took office after coups, having to make notice of which is which. It is done with entry colours for each party (and military being a "party" for these purposes), and an additional field to notice the way the president took power. Things like the dates when universal suffrage is installed or the start of historical periods (such as the infamous decade or the return to democracy may be noted on the "notes" section, without need to interrupt the list. MBelgrano (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbering

Cristina Fernández being the 54th president... is there any official numbering? Or is this just Wikipedia's whim? --Againme (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there's nothing official about it. Even more, the numbering was removed from Wikipedia in Spanish, see es:Discusión:Presidente de la Nación Argentina (of course, in Spanish) MBelgrano (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

International relations

There's a little misunderstanding, both here and in some other articles. It is said that Rosas was given the power manage the international relations of Argentina, other times it is said (or implied) that he did so out of hegemony over the other provinces. Either thing is mistaken. This arrangement did not start with Rosas, it started with the fall of Rivadavia. With the lack of national authorities of any kind, the provinces granted a few things to the Governor of Buenos Aires Province (more to the office itself than to whoever is in charge of it) such as managing the international relations. This allowed Manuel Dorrego to formally end the War with Brazil; otherwise it would have stayed an open war up to 1853. Rosas came later. The confusion may be located in the granting of the sum of public power given to Rosas in 1835, which gave him unlimited power. That's another and different thing. Rosas did not receive the power to manage international relations as part of the sum of public power. And, as it can be understood from this context, it was not an act of hegemony of Rosas (meaning, a politician doing things that he isn't legally or politically meant to do, but does so anyway because of his political power), but simply that, for good or bad, the Confederation was arranged that way. If there was an hegemony in this, it was the hegemony of Buenos Aires, which existed long before Rosas and remained long after him. MBelgrano (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Puerta and Camaño

I have been checking this list with the info in the book "El final", listed in the bibliography, which makes an overall summary of the careers of all presidents and the way each one took and left government.

At page 263, it rejects the common idea of listing Puerta and Camaño as presidents, or the myth of the 5 presidents in 10 days. It states that neither the reading of the law of lack of president, the involved politicians or any constitutionalists agree with it: the idea accepted in those fields is that there were 3 presidents, De la Rúa, Rodríguez Saá and Duhalde.

The popular recognition to the "Five presidents" thing seems to have started at the US, where some TV humorist (not mentioned) was making jokes about Bush and mentioned a terrible fate for him, the one that took place in Argentina days before, with 5 presidents. The joke became popular, both in the US and in Argentina. After all, as the book points, if someone wants to provide shocking info to illustrate the chaotic days of 2001 in Argentina, 5 is more shocking than 3.

If we view things from this angle, it seems clear that Puerta and Camaño should be removed from here. The perspective of specialists take precedence over "popular" or shocking perspectives, if they are incorrect.

For a similar reason, I suggest removing as well the "Third Triumvirate" that ruled interim for 2 days. I have plenty of history books about the time period, and I have yet to find one making any mention of it. MBelgrano (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They should go and so does a so called Third Triumvirate. Unless there are un-impeachable sources as you well know. Rumors and common folklore don't belong in the list. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cisneros

What should we do with Cisneros? Should we left him here, or remove him?

By one side, it is correct that he was president of a Junta. For just one day, rigth, but he wasn't meant to be interim (at least, not more than the Primera Junta itself; you surely know the details very well). He did make the oath of office and all the stuff.

On the other side, I doubt we will ever find any source including him as a head of state of Argentina of any nature. The "birth" of Argentina, the government regarded as the first national one, is the Primera Junta, headed by Saavedra, which was actually ousting the Cisneros junta. I included him a long time ago when I included as well a list of viceroys, my idea by then was to simply include anyone that ever ruled in the lands that would become Argentina; and the mention of Cisneros helped to understand the political chaos (the Junta ruled in Buenos Aires, but the Viceroy in Montevideo rejected such authorithy).

In more broad terms, the right question should be, when should we start counting heads of state? 9 of july of 1816? 25 of May of 1810? The creation of the viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata? The establishment of Buenos Aires? The viceroys of Peru? MBelgrano (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I favor starting the list with the First National Government, as Argentina officially recognises the first non-colonial predecessor state of modern Argentina. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Parties

Other lists of heads of state include a colour scheme at the fields or at the side to note the political parties. I did not include it because in those other cases there are a handful of parties, but here there are so many that it would become a colourful rainbow that would say very little. But now that I think of it, we may reduce them all into a colour scheme of 5 parties (Federals, Unitarians, Justicialists, Radicals, and Military), by grouping alliances or split parties with their main ones. De la Rúa was elected with the Alianza, and Kirchner with the Front for Victory, but if seen from a global perspective I doubt anyone would reject grouping them with the radicals and peronists. MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Color code

I strongly disagree with the proposed color code. It's oversimplifying to have the same color for Concordance governments and military governments, to reduce the Alianza to its UCR part, etc. Moreover, the trimming of the Affiliations box is brutal and unjustifiable. I'll remove until some sort of an accord can be established. --IANVS (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed this 20 days ago. If we use different colour codes for each specific small-lived party or political alliance, most colours would be used only once, becoming meaningless. After all, the relation of De la Rúa with the UCR is clear for everybody, regardless of the Frepaso presence in his government. A similar thing goes for the Concordance: the UCR was proscripted, they openly accepted that they made electoral fraud, and Justo had been already involved with the 1930 coup, who would deny that they are related? It would be easier if we were like Uruguay, with just Blancos and Colorados (and now the Frente Amplio) from the civil wars to modern day, but we aren't.

In any case, this simplification applies only to the colours. There is a box at each entry to detail which specific party or alliance was the one in government each time. MBelgrano (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the box at entry, the previous version should stay, it was far more informative and useful. The color code can be overimposed over that same table. Simplificating Argentine parties and alliances to that minimum denominator you proposed is absurd and ultimately useless. BTW; the code should at least be discussed first at talk page. For example, Concordance was an alliance of parties not related to the military, except for the figure of Justo. Nor it was its project linked to Uriburu's coup. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have in mind that many readers at this project may not be much aware of Argentine politics: they may recognize Cristina, Néstor, Perón, perhaps Galtieri, and not many more. And for a stranger, all party names would seem like equal things, they wouldn't be able to recognize the "main" party and the secondary small parties that came from those unless we point so. Without a code that simplifies things, people would have to think that Cámpora, Menem and Kirchner are all from unrelated parties, or that Alfonsín, De la Rúa and Frondizi are from different parties as well. Which may be true, but only from a purely technical/legalist way. In either case, it's always peronism and radicalism each. All people recognize it that way, and the code is a good way to reflect that. Our number of parties is not as stable as in Uruguay, but it isn't either as chaotic as this list with so much parties would suggest to the unaware foreign reader MBelgrano (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to group Peronists and Radicals under a single color code, for example, but some clarifications have to be made and some questions arise. For example, the Alianza was not solely the UCR, and that has to be noted; considering the logic you propose for labeling the De la Rúa period as a radical period, we also should not that the UCR-Antipersonalista was government during the Concertación period... so ¿should the Ortíz government be coded as a radical government?

I favor that some historic formations (peronists, radicals, etc.) are to be labeled under a single code color, but a more detailed account of the particular governmental formations (such as the current affiliations infobox) should remain, as they are a positive improvement for the better understanding of the different periods and variable coalitions in Argentina. I propose mixing the two infobox proposals.

Re the adscriptions

1. Pedernera was Unitarian, at least until Caseros. Although I don't know under what affiliation did he became Vice-President under Derqui, but I doubt he should be labeled as Federal.
2. Avellaneda was from the National Party (a liberal party).... by the same logic, Sarmiento can also be adscribed as liberal.
3. Mitre was from the Autonomist Party, as far as I know (same logic regarding his liberal position as in Avellaneda and Sarmiento)

Regarding the last two cases, if we are to take into account the political views of the governments instead of their formal adscription, then we'd have to distinguish R. Sáenz Peña and F. Alcorta from the other PAN governments (also C. Pellegrini); C. Menem from most other Peronist governments; the "Lomos Negros" from Rosista Federals, etc.

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Proposal

Here a proposal for the color key box format. The "liberal" grouping is quite vague, but it should include Mitre, Sarmiento and Avellaneda. I did not incluide the PAN under "Conservative", because it was actually a big tent party that mostly behave as a Latin American 19th Century Liberal Party (Church-State separation, Education policies, Foreign Trade and Investment, etc.). Any further information about Pedernera's or Mitre's actual affiliations? BTW, I think we should background colour the "affiliations" column on the table, creating one extra column for this is excessive. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Colour key
(for political parties)

  Federal (19th Century Federals)

  Unitarian (19th Century Centralists)

  Liberal - Liberal Party? National Party? (19th Century Liberals)

  National Autonomist Party (1874–1916)

  Radicals - UCR (founded 1891), UCR-A (1924–1946), UCRI (1956–1972), UCRP (1957–1972), Alianza (UCR, FREPASO) (1997–2001)

  Conservative - Concordancia (UCR-A, PSI, PDN) (1931–1943), PDN (1931–1955)

  Peronists - Laborist (1945–1947), PJ (founded 1947), FJL (1972–1974), FPV (since 2003)

  Military (Acting on behalf of the Armed Forces)

It seems right, but check again the way things were arranged before. The colour code was not included as a new column, it was placed inside the column of the order number. We may ask somewhere how to make it more narrow, if it was too big. I took the basic code from List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, which was pointed to me as an example of how should a featured list be, but for some reason that list makes smaller columns than here. Besides, adding colour to the whole row makes it more difficult to read the text inside, and should be used just for tables with rows of a single line each (not the case here).

I will check the affiliations things in some days. MBelgrano (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of Quintana's term ending.

On Quintana's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Quintana), it states that Quintana died in office on 3/12/1906). In the list of Argentine Presidents, it has him resigning on 1/25/1906. Does anyone know which is the correct date that Quintana left office and was succeeded by José Figueroa Alcorta? Jtyroler (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Free" elections

Hi. This list states that Kirchner and Fernández, etc, were elected by "direct free elections". By law, in Argentina elections are not free, but mandatory. --Againme (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free" means that there were no anomalies in the elections, such as fraud (as with Justo or Ortiz) or proscriptions (as with Justo or Frondizi). If you check the whole table, not just the last two entries, you will notice that each one points the way each head of state got to power. Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Jorge Rafael Videla.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jorge Rafael Videla.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jorge Rafael Videla.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Galtieri.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Galtieri.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Galtieri.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)