Talk:Argentina

Neutrality, edit requested, introductory statement

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

Request edit of economy section

It should be noted that the CPI used to measure corruption is under harsh critisism and that the global corruption barmeter released by the same organization (transparency international) places Argentina in the place 31 of 95 countries, with levels of bribery well below the world's average.

http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/results

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

2A01:73C0:503:B1B:0:0:3CBA:8556 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Official language

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

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

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

You don't seem to understand the difference between official and national languages in the infobox template, so here it is as per Template:Infobox_country:

|official_languages = <!--Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc-->
|national_languages = <!--Country/territory-wide languages recognised but not necessarily in country/territory-wide law, etc-->
|regional_languages = <!--Languages recognised or associated with particular regions within the country/territory-->

See? Clear as day. Official language is for a language that is recognised as such in legislation country-wide, and there is none in Argentina's case. Instead, Argentina does have a national language and that is Spanish. "De facto official" is an oxymoron and it does not make any sense. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have slowly begun to change my opinion about what is an official language over time and in different articles. I began by holding a similar view to Bunderstag1 (is that name allowed?), but am drifting the other way slowly. The template guidelines though are fairly clear and they avoid many problems. I do not think a national language has any negative tones so those thinking 'official' gives a language greater kudos may need to think again. Incidentally, I may be wrong but the template guidelines appear to have been updated and clarified in the not too distant past. I recall that there used to be ambiguity about this. Without the new guidelines the word 'official' can be applied in a de jure and a de facto situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please indent your replies otherwise it's not clear what user you are responding to. You have clearly not addressed any of my arguments and you keep repeating yourself. Once again, de facto means unofficially:

De facto is Latin for "of fact," meaning "in reality," and it's usually contrasted with "de jure," which means "of law," or "officially."

De facto: ACTUAL, esp. being such in effect though not formally recognized

Bringing up Tanzania's article is inconsequential. United States, arguably the most visited article for a country in the English Wikipedia has had a long established consensus regarding this very topic as that country (a federal constitutional republic just like Argentina) also lacks a federally designated official language. The footnote on both articles is quite clear on why there is no official language as such. I don't think anyone would infer that lacking an official language means that members of their legislative bodies would suddenly start speaking in random languages just because they can. --MewMeowth (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)