Talk:Argentina/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10


Edit request from Facundil, 12 July 2011

The Gini Index that the article reports is so old (2009); the last results are:

Gini Index: 3rd third of 2010: 0.390 1st third of 2011: 0.379

Some sources:

Facundil (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the Gini index to what is provided in the source linked already in the article which was updated for the 3rd quarter of 2010. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 February 2012

Please change the Argentina Etymology, Argentina is Silverland in Latin. (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is derived from the Latin Argentum which means Silver so that would be Land of Silver and it is explained in the article. No need for changes. -- Alexf(talk) 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop using "Argentine"

Why keep using this term? "Argentine" means "silvery" from the French word for silver. "Argentinian" (British Eng) or "Argentinean" (US Eng) are the correct words and have been for ages. Its only "media types" such as the BBC which have hijacked usage to "argentine". It is annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really not that simple. I don't know about the US, but in Britain both Argentinian and Argentine are used, indeed up until WW2 Argentine (and the associated "the Argentine" for the country) was used almost exclusively. Now its less clearcut but still not the case that Argentinian is used anywhere near being exclusively. Seeing beef or wine for example marked as 'Argentine' is nothing out of the ordinary. The OED I believe lists Argentine as the correct term for a citizen of the Argentine Republic (to use its full name, not the Argentinian Republic incidentally), while Argentinian is the adjectival form; in general though both are considered acceptable forms. - Chrism would like to hear from you 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This link might be of interest btw. - Chrism would like to hear from you 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually "Argentine" has been used as the demonym in en.Wikipedia since the beginning. There is nothing wrong with it and no reason to change that (and the thousands of existing references). It is not annoying (that would be POV) and certainly not pejorative like some other moniker used in English that we do not need to repeat. -- Alexf(talk) 21:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Small Edit

In the right panel with country data, the GDP PPP value is correct but says its position is "(22nd)" when should say "(21st)" (Argentina took 21st place since 2011, leaving the Netherlands in 22nd) -- (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Edit: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, check what they say before, now Argentina is the 21st world economy (look the charts by the IMF). And checking the "nominal GDP per capita", elaborated by the IMF, Argentina is not the Fifth in Latin America, is the Fourth! (the chart in wikipedia says that). THANKS, Matías

Edit Request on 15 April 2012

In the 'Dirty War' section it states that Argentina attempted to 'recover the [Falkland] islands'. This is technically incorrect, as the Falkland Islands were never taken from Argentina. (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The link to Chile in the first paragraph goes to Antartica.--E1stettler (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Etienne

Hi, there should be a mention here about Kirchner's death in October 27 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Cambalachero (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a member of wikipedia (and I'm sure that this is in the wrong section) (and this is unrelated to the edit request above, but I don't know where to put it), but I just wanted to say that the "Dirty War" section of this wikipedia entry either seems to have been written by someone who is not a native English speaker, or to have been copied and translated en masse from a non-English source using some online language translator. Incorrect grammar is used throughout, and I think it would be good to find the source and re-translate/edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gini Index [Again]

Gini Index seems to be wrong again. In Argentina article, it marks 45.8 (2009; and it's wrong the notation too). In sub-article (Argentine Economy) it marks actually 0.379 (Q1 2011).

Sorry for my poor english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facundil (talkcontribs) 10:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Both articles use different sources. I'd say the first one (the CIA Factbook) is more reliable than the second one (INDEC), but I could be wrong. There are more sources in the list of countries by income equality.
In the meanwhile, I've corrected the format in this article. Is 'high' the correct category? --Langus (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I didn't found other source for gini index. I think that CIA Factbook gini index is too high and INDEC one is a bit low. For the correct category, I don't know but I think that is not high and not low the index. Gini index should be inter 0.39 and 0.42, I'll look for another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facundil (talkcontribs) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The INDEC is not a reliable source for Argentine statistics, it is widely rejected (both domestically and internationally) for its indecent manipulation of that info. This goes beyond just critics at a disgruntled newspaper, even the IMF and Barack Obama critiziced this. See here for a small sample of political repercutions Cambalachero (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

INDEC is the official source for this data and it is not disputed on this matter (only in measuring inflation is). CIA factbook is usually politically biased and normally based on simple estimates. The INDEC one should be used. Is the official. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a little confusion here. World Bank's data show 44.5 for 2010 (stricto sensu, as per Gini coefficient definition, I would rather prefer 0.445). That figure is consistent with 0.4579 informed by INDEC for Q3 2010 based on total household income, available here. The 0.379 figure probably comes from taking into account a different calculation: household per capita income (adding households), also shown in the above mentioned INDEC report. Since that figure does not consider the number of members in a household, and poor households have a (global) tendency to have more members than richer ones, the value is somewhat misleading (but useful for other purposes). The difference is clear when you see household per capita income (adding population): the same source shows 0.4885. Cinabrium (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

who wrote this?

Could you provide a reference for your given affirmation about Cristina Kirchner ... "limiting the freedom of speech"  ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cambalachero (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Rosendo Fraga (who is he?) is censored ? Could you please transcript the paragraph ? , I certainly would not buy this guy book to check this . Is there any global reliable source backing this claim ?

e.g. www state gov

2006 The independent media were numerous and active and, despite the government's confrontational attitude, expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. All print media were owned privately, as were a significant number of radio and television stations.

2011 The independent media were numerous and active, expressing a wide variety of views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech has never been higher in Argentina. The new media law and the repealing of the old law concerning libel are proofs enough. I suggest user cambalachero stops mixing it's personal political opinions with wikipedia, which shouldn't be a political tool for propaganda, for either governement or anti-government use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Puertoba.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Puertoba.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 March 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:Puertoba.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Ok, I start by saying, as people above me, that Latinobarometro is not a believable source. I'm from Argentina and not me, my family, friends nor anyone from the town where I live were ever asked about what race we consider ourselves. I asked to people I know from nearby towns and cities and they said the same.

Now, the other issue: it says 61% white, 26% mestizo, 1% amerindian, 1% black and 1% mulatto. The thing is, that 26+1+1+1 is 29, and 100-29 isn't 61, it's 71. Also, I think it's impossible that 2% of the Argentine population might be afro, the fingers of my hands are more than enough to count how many afro people I've seen in my country in my life.

So what people here should do is, to put aside Latinobarometro and take other sources (that would be more advisable) or correct the percentage of white people which, I repeat, should be 71% instead of 61%, that's much more likely and closest to reality. -- (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Argentina Product Export Treemap.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Argentina Product Export Treemap.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Argentina Product Export Treemap.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

INDEC as a source for GDP

The INDEC cannot be considered by any means a reliable source for establishing the current state of the Argentine economy, and manipulated figures should not be given any place in this article. They've been cooking their books for years now, I can produce any number of sources to prove it if necessary.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's well known that INDEC is no longer reliable and has been for a few years manipulating numbers to present a better vire of Argentine economy than it truly is. I agree with you, Ultimate Destiny. You've done the right thing. --Lecen (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the "Gini Index [Again]" thread, the INDEC is rejected both within and outside Argentina. The rejection range even from Barack Obama and the IMF to the independent Argentine press and everyone in the middle. Only the press financed by the government thinks that there is no problem with it, or take such values as correct (and as they are financed by the government, they can't be taken as uninvolved opinions). Even the unionist Hugo Moyano, when he was still allied to the government, refused to negotiate worker wages under the inflation figures provided by the INDEC. Cambalachero (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero, you have all rights to hold your political beliefs. But not for using Wikipedia articles as a platform for them. "The rejection range[s] even from Barack Obama and the IMF...": sources, please. When has President Obama said such thing? Or the IMF? On the other hand, the statemets of what you call "independent Argentine press" (do you mean Clarín and La Nación?), spearheading the opposition, can´t be taken at face value. BTW, what's being discussed here are GDP, not CPI, figures; and AFAICT the figures shown in the article are those from IMF. Cinabrium (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The reference is where I said it was, see here. And that's a mere example. On the other hand, I will request you to cite some reliable source which supports the INDEC in this controversy... and does not get financial rewards from the Argentine government. Can you cite any such source? Cambalachero (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Four days have passed, and no source has been presented. As I said, the only sources that support the INDEC figures receive payment from the government, and thus are not reliable. All the media that is not financed by the government (including but not limited to Clarín and La Nación) reject it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity (AGAIN)

Hey people, what's wrong with you? 61%+26%+1%+1%+1% is only 90%, where's the missing 10%? were 4 million Argentines taken by aliens? O, and by the way, Argentina is 21st in the list of GDP (PPP) according to the IMF, not 22nd. -- (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


I live in Argentina, I am argentinian, and I never saw a black in my all life, are more asian than blacks, MUCH more,so much more, is impossible that live in argentina 800000 blacks, and that i never saw one of them, is an stupid. Please, fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juani36 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Already fixed (kind of). The study only shows that the cited percentage of people have some genetic markers pointing at some African ancestry, one that is not reflected in the population's physiognomy. The figures are confusing because do not speak of ethnicity, only shows -in the taken sample- the percentage of those having certain markers other than the predominant one, given the general admixture of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnvss (talkcontribs) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem, as usual with the ethnicity stats. In my humble opinion, the former stats are properly written and stated by reliable sources as per WP:RS, and unlike the current one entirely stated and cited on Latinobarometro survey on public opinion. I'm not saying that we have to delete this information from Wikipedia, I'm saying that in order to renominate Argentina as a good article and meet the good article criteria is better to state possible controversial data on a non-GA page. --Fercho85 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Current Constitution

The Current Constitution is not the one enacted on May 1st, 1853, since it has been amended several times, instead, I think two events should be recorded, the enactment of the Constitution that created the Argentine Republic on May 1st, 1853, and the last amendment to it, on August 22nd, 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1853 Constitution was amended several times, but it has never been repealed as those of 1819 and 1826 Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Article size

This article has nearly 78 KB of readable text. According to WP:SIZERULE, it should be reduced in at least 18 or 28 KB. I will begin working on it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)



No need to shout. Using foul language does not get your point across any better. Stating your opinion may be valid here, as long as you can produce reliable sources to back it up. Pointing to an article in Spanish Wikipedia does not make it any more reliable or verifiable. Please do not post in Spanish in the English language Wikipedia and please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf(talk) 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

jaja okey gracias amigo, esque nose hablar ingleees, pero soy argentino asi que lo que digo es bien fiable ;) GRACIAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinión sin fuentes no es fiable en WP. Si no escribes en inglés, serás bienvenido en Wikipedia en Español, donde también se necesitan fuentes fiables.

Argentina has more than 80% of European descendense, who wrote 61% it's wrong, Wikipedia must change that porcentage (we have the same levels as Uruguay), and thay guy that said thar Argentinians have indian blood, is making a mistake (he must love Che Guevara and love Cuba hehe). Please change that number, 61% is wrong. Thanks, Matías. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the source: (the article's in Spanish). Still, it says 56% of argentines have SOME amerindian descent, it doesn't say how much. Possibly there is people with 90% european 10% amerindian blood included in that 56% (I don't know, really, the article isn't very clear). I believe the percentages currently shown in the article are quite correct (White (61%), Mestizo (26%), Does not know/No response (7%), Other (3%), Amerindian (1%), Black (1%), Mulatto (1%), Asian (0%)) (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That research was conducted by a team leaded by Dr. Daniel Corach he is with the genetics tracks service in the University of Buenos Aires faculty of pharmacy and biochemistry, the study was made by collecting roughly 10000 anonymous genetic samples from public hospitals in 11 provinces main hospitals:,1,1605,O,S,0,PAG;CONC;1609;6;D;2178;1;PAG;, (include the semicolon and the comma at the end of the link if not it won't show the website properly) It is a well know fact that most Argentinian nationals do not use massively the public health service, most people are affiliated to privatized or partially privatized health services called "obra social" or "prepaga", the public hospital service are used generally by the most vulnerable section of the population that includes lower class, immigrants and people from abroad: It is calculated that one out of three patients in public hospital throughout Argentina are from abroad who come specifically for medical care in Argentina where that is provided for free, they won't get a no as an answer because according to Argentine laws it is a constitutional right the access to health services. That means the whole research is questionable it is probable they get genetic samples from people who aren't even Argentinians at all: They say in that article that Bolivian nationals residents in Argentina who attend to public hospitals are the 7% of the whole total hospitals population, i rather think it is more but there isn't a reliable research about this with cold stone numbers, and that article do not even say if those patients are ambulatory or if they are admitted in the hospitals and occupying a bed or if it's the two things together. And that doesn't even contemplate Peruvian, Paraguayan, Chilean and other nationals residents in Argentina. I think that part should be dismissed from the article in Wikipedia because of the lack of accuracy of the probings, if we are going to make voodoo out of this let's start: 10000 genetic samples 1/3 of the patients are from abroad: 10000/3= 3333.33 were people who do not even are Argentine, 10000-3333.33= 6666.67 people when we deduct people from abroad, now we have 6666.67*7/100= 466.66 Bolivian nationals residents in Argentina that goes to public hospitals, lets make 10000-3333.33-466.66= 6200.01 people who might be Argentinians and that's without counting Peruvians, Paraguayans and Chileans in an aftermath we can say there is a chance that 38% of the samples can be from foreigner that do no live in Argentina and Bolivians born people who lives in Argentina, i know this is voodoo, but the Dr. Corach's research is voodoo and tendentious as well. (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Latinobarometro is not a credible source to cite as for the ethnic composition of the Argentinian population. How could "only" 61% of Argentinians have European ancestry (a percentage this even lower than that of the US) when the country's current population was totally shaped by massive European immigration in late XIX and early XX centuries??? 26% Mestizo and 3% Black, Mulatto or Amerindian simply aren't credible figures... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am agree with the last comment, latinobarometro is not a credible source to cite as for the ethnic composition of the Argentinian population. How could "only" 61% of Argentinians have European ancestry (a percentage this even lower than that of the US) when the country's current population was totally shaped by massive European immigration in late XIX and early XX centuries??? 26% Mestizo and 3% Black, Mulatto or Amerindian simply aren't credible figures... I am argentinian and I never saw in my all life a black person in argentina, I have 17 year old, and in my class in the school are 27 people, 23 are white, the 85% of my class is white, in a public school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Have any of you guys read the whole article of Latinobarometro? That is a bunch of data collected from that organisation from the general public, they just go out there and ask common people what do they think without any rigorous official and reliable data sources, lets say if you go to mostly immigrant neighborhoods from neighbor countries to Argentina and you ask those people you mostly will receive the same reply: indigenous or mix raced, but that do not represent the totality of the Argentine population as a whole, anyways Latinobarometro gives a wild guess on that matter based on what people think they are, some people will consider themselves as "mestizo" since they are a mix of European ethnic origins but still they should be considered as white. I think that part should be removed because of lack of serious and reliable sources. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


I just can't believe the statistics on the number of people of pure european descent. I was recently in Buenos Aires and I swear at least 30% of the people were mestizo to some degree, the native south american appearance is quite a distinctive look. I'm from Europe and no way does it look like a homogenous european group of people. Possibly this is the result of increased migration from peru etc but either way - it certainly was not "overwhelmingly white european" Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

2 further points: being "white" is not the same as being 100% european descent. Mestizos are white
If this is based on self identification only its hardly scientific.
Based on the people you see when you walk around I'd suggest its more like 60% european, 40% native/mestizo. I saw a handful of black people and two asians. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Jandrews says:
"I was recently in Buenos Aires and I swear at least 30% of the people were mestizo to some degree"
Buenos Aires doesn't represent all of Argentina, and central Buenos Aires (where you probably were) doesn't even represent all of Buenos Aires. So, you can't rely on pure observation. It would be like someone visiting Miami and concluding that half the US population is Spanish-speaking. Skyduster (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity (Again and again)

Now the proportion of Asian people in Argentina is 0% huh? let me ask you something, editors of this page, does the term Chinese Argentine mean something to you? nearly 1% of Argentina's population is composed by Asians, being them Chinese, Japanese or Korean, natives or immigrants. To this is added that proportion of white Argentines is not lower, but significantly lower than the proportion of white U.S Americans, and that proporcion of Afro Argentines doesn't match what is seen on the streets As I told you several times before, Latinobarometro is far from a reliable source, you must search for better sources. -- (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into it, but you can find more sources at the relevant articles in Spanish WP: [1][2]
Some of them: [3][4][5]
Also, the Joshua Project could be considered. --Langus (t) 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


"placing the country high in the global rankings of literacy. Today Argentina has a literacy rate of 97,4%,[136] and 16,2% over age 15 have completed secondary school studies or higher."

Somebody should check the seconcdary school completition percentage, I find it very hard to believe only 16% finished high school... I heard somewhere it was more like 60-70% wich seems more believele. 16% is Sub-saharan-african-country's bad...

Oh and somebody please fix the GINI, it says the same thing since f*cking forever (Its like 4 years old), its about 0.37ish now, and it would be "middle" not "high", and few countries put the "low-middle-high" thing anyways... -- (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

¿Puerto Madero is the main financial center of Buenos Aires?

This is completely wrong. Although some corporate headquarters are located in Puerto Maderno, this is mostly a RESIDENTIAL district, in fact, all the buildings of the photo are residential buildings. The main financial center of Buenos Aires is Retiro district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems in Lede

I've noticed some problems in this article's lede. For example, the lede has an entire paragraph talking about same-sex marriage while the body of the article mentions it as an aside in a single sentence. According to the manual of style this is backwards; the lede should be brief and the details belong in the article. Also, the lede text generally does not need footnotes as it should be a summary of the main body's content which in turn should be properly footnoted. Is anybody actively working on this? I notice a previous comment that offered to break up the article back in May and nothing since. Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved marriage stuff down to Contemporary section, undue wt for lead. Vsmith (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012

§ About half way down in the tourism section "he" should be "The"

"he most popular tourist sites are..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger22222 (talkcontribs) 06:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Vsmith (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Implicit political tendency in false assertion and lack of partiality

"Argentina ranks 100th out of 178 countries in the Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2011. Reported problems include government corruption, lack of judicial independence, huge taxes and tariffs, and regulatory interference that undermines efficiency and productivity growth"

Due to the world crisis, Argentina's government has decided to substantially increase the level of protectionism (AKA REGULATORY INTERFERENCE...) by limiting imports. These regulations are keeping internal economy quite boosted, increasing productivity due to high demand of made-in-argentina goods of every kind. The assertion that it's the other way around actually is only a best-wish statement of a neo-liberalist, but you may take some time to read Argentina's history to find out that all major crisis in here where caused by neo-liberalist politics (Military junta-Carlos Menem-Fernando de la Rua).

Take the time to read (the quoted source) to prove yourself that it's only a battlehorse of liberalism hipocrecy making some statements about a socialist government.

So I request that quote to be removed due to lack of partiality — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bias and total subjectivity of this "article"

Vias and total subjectivity of this "article" (if you could call it that) on "Argentina", by subjective and false in several of his concepts, I speak knowingly, I am Argentine, and that the reality of this country is very different from that which would have us believe in this article: Argentina is a third world country currently uncertain, with a lot of poverty, extreme corruption (especially the government), unemployment, pseudo-companies (who live off the state) eg Arcor sancor, Grupo Clarin, La Serenissima, Molinos Rio de la Plata and some others not worth mentioning, a shameless and corrupt government so far like the present.

Pedro Gonzalez Rosario Santa Fe — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

On the last paragraph of the introduction (the one talking about same-sex marriage), that should be moved to "Contemporary era" in the history section, because it's too specific for a general introduction. -- (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree and moved. "Contemporary era" is not the right section, but I couldn't find any better. Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Religion picture table is incorrect. Why is it kept?

The atheist amount in the religion picture table says: 11.3% While it clearly says right next to the reference 190. "Not in citation given". In fact the citation is a website about mexico! not argentina. And the other sources mentioned in the religion section of the article page, say: - "According to the World Christian Database Argentines are: 92.1% Christian, 3.1% agnostic, 1.9% Muslim, 1.3% Jewish, 0.9% atheist, and 0.9% Buddhist and others.[194]"

So in that source atheist is 0.9% (not 11.3%).

and - "A recent study found that approximately 11% of Argentines are non-religious (which includes those who believe in God but do not follow a religion), 4% are agnostics and 5% are atheist. Overall 24% attended religious services regularly. Protestants were the only group with a majority of followers who regularly attended services.[198]"

In that source atheist is 5%, and agnostic 4%.

So the maximum atheist % in reliable citations is 5%, and the minimum is 0.9%. While the atheist 11.3% used in the picture table has no reliable source!

Whoever edits this page, please remove the false source in the picture table, and use one of the others, or another verified source. Not just a number made up which presumably is the non religious % (most of who still believe in God). Not the atheist % (who do not believe in God). Which is not at all the same thing.

Wikipedia is getting very very poor in it's facts on many pages this year. Especially about anything relating to religions. (And muslim related pages are allowed to write anything they like without verified sources, claiming all knowledge achievements for islam and condemning their victims in history as bad and deserving what was done to them. And also censoring criticism while freely using wikipedia to write their pro islam apologetics. And edits to correct one sided muslim pages and to include balance, are reversed just because it is islam. Verified sources are only needed when claims are made against islam, but not when claims are made in favour of islam.)

There is a message appearing asking for donations. You can forget donations, if wikipedia is not going to be accurate. There is a possibility it will lose it's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the correct source that is missing:
It was probably vandalised sometime. Salut, -- (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Falklands War

In the paragraph this is mentioned, it goes from a sentence saying the Guerrilla Junta were defeated in 1979, to mentioning the defeat by the United Kingdom in the Falklands war, to the free elections in 1983. As the Falklands war took place 2nd April 1982, could the year 1982 be put in the Falklands war section to be more informative and eliminate false presumptions it happened 3 years earlier? (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regional Power?

There seems to be a serious inconsistency between this article and Regional Power, which excludes Argentina from the list of Latin American powers (claimed to be limited to just Brazil and Mexico) and pushes it down to the much less significant role of South Cone Regional Power.

For the sake of maintaining a coherent vision, should this article be fixed? Windroff (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the article to better suit the references given, which seem to describe either a more or less distant past or a power status limited to the Southern Cone. "Regional power" as was stated in the text was too ambiguous, as it was not certain whether "regional" referred to the Americas, Latin America, South America, etc.
If anyone can provide academic references which clearly place Argentina among Latin American leaders/powers then please change the text accordingly.Windroff (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


This section is unorganized, lacks references and gives too much depth to Buenos Aires and none to the rest of the country. It's supposed to be an introductory text, so it needs to be partially rewritten. And it should be under the Economy section, not Geography. Windroff (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

I´m from Argentina and cannot understand why have you changed figures about ethnicity, cause it was reasonable to assume that 85% of argentinian population is white as it was established in the former version (though, i think it may be slightly overestimated) but... 97% of caucasian people?! That´s certainly not true nowadays. Immigration from neighbour countries has changed my country permanently and since the 80s you can find lots of people with clear amerindian features everywhere (at least, 15%; in my opinion, 20% or even more)... -- (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Limiting the freedom of speach" in Cristina's goverment

Cristina's goverment no "limiting the freedom of speach". They don´t censored any publication or other. They (with votation of legislature) only do a law that regulated the maximun numbers of licenses of massive comunication media that can have one economic group. Because little number of economics groups have the mayor numbers of licenses, and don´t like this law (like Grupo Clarin, that have the most sealed diary, multiple channels of tv, multiple radio, and other) and they have an "information monopoly" she have a "bad press" in most mass multimedia; but is parcial position take it as true. Sorry my english! :). Cheers. Marcosm21 (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Limits to the freedom of the press do not require outright censorship. Harassment from the government to induce self-censorship count towards it as well. And there are too many examples to count: the "clarín miente" banners, the libels against Clarín by government-financed media, the expropiation of Papel Prensa, the Noble bothers case, etc. As for the law, it is applied selectively: there are many groups that excede the numbers of licences, but the government does nothing to put them in line. Not surprisingly, of all of them Clarín is the only one which is not aligned with the government. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Clarín is a particular case. Make a show with "the bad image of the president" and publish unreliable information to persuade people of its position (e.g. make many predictions wrong about economy, try to influence public opinion actively by certain positions in judicial proceedings, etc.). Freedom of expression applies to both government and the press. The governments can comment without restricting freedom of press. La Nación, other opposition media, has more rigorous in his publications. Marcosm21 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Even if that was true, it still would not allow the government's attacks described. Have in mind that, historically and internationally, it have always been the dictatorships and the cuasi-dictatorships those who saw the freedom of the press as a "problem". In the free republics, the press may say whatever they want, and the government does not interfere with it, in fact they support the press right to say whatever they want. If they "lie", that would be their own problem, as they would lost credibility; but that's not a problem for the government.
But let's take it down to the sources. Can you point someone who supports the "Clarín is the real problem" perspective... while being independent and neither financed by the government nor aligned to it? Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is a monopoly of information. Now Clarin say he is "independent media", but received funding for its development and was a tool of dictatorship. I don´t want to expose a political position (sorry if i do it). I just think that set as true the position of the freedom of expression of an economic group, for being the most important, is not neutral and does not represent the reality of the country. Marcosm21 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no monopoly: there are several newspapers and media in Argentina which are not part of the Clarín group, of both political lines (you mentioned La Nación yourself). And Clarín is independent, it is not affiliated or financed by any political party. And the link you gave does not prove anything, the headlines are simply mentioning the things that happened in the common newspaper headline style, the second is a government advertisment, and the others are from other publications, unrelated to Clarín. But even if Clarín supported the Junta, it would be a non-sequitur argument: that was more than 30 years ago. The freedom of the press applies to all media, regardless of reputation.
And, in any case, why are we talking about Clarín? It is not mentioned in that section of the article, nor used as a reference of the sentence. The government does not attack only Clarín, but all media that is not aligned with them, such as La Nación and Perfil as well, competitors of Clarín. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is exceeding the objective of the article. I think, however, that the phrase "The government waged several controversies with the press, limiting the freedom of speech." should be deleted or changed to not expose positions of certain groups to describe the situation in the country. Here everyone can speak, publish and protest without government censorship. Cheers. Marcosm21 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not the position of an individual group. It is shared by all the independent media of Argentina, even when do not belong to a single common "group", and even by international media. The only ones who blame Clarín (a mere newspaper, not less, but no more) of the problems of Argentina are the media which is financed by the government and proudly announce themselves as "soldiers of Cristina" or similar stuff. You will have a hard time seeking an actual independent source that supports Kirchner in her projects towards Clarín. And this info is included in the article because the conflict with the media has been a driving force of most government actions since the end of the dispute with ruralism. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I modified the sentence to remove an ideological stance. I not eliminate any information. Marcosm21 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Bring someone who is not aligned with the government or a government speaker, saying that the government is not limiting the freedom of the press, and we may reconsider the sentence. Otherwise, it is the removal the one that is biased. Cambalachero (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Its not a limitation on the freedom of press. You should read the new law involving the media with an unlawful use of the lincenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavoGreggi (talkcontribs) 13:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
There are many critics to the government's attitude toward the press (distribution of official publicity, etc) but to say in this article that the government limited the freedom of speech is totally biased and misleading. I am taking this out. Cambalachero: Wikipedia is not for you to publish your own personal views. If you want to do that, get a blog. If you want to edit, be neutral. (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the last comment. Even though I do not support CFK's government, I must recognize that freedom of speech is not threaten in my country yet (fortunately). -- (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello to everbody, here isn't information about "Ley de Medios" (Mass Media Law)released by Cristina Kirchner president, also isn't here about the famous "7D" (December 7, 2012), day who the Argentinian Court said for Grupo Clarin's massive medias would be independient of them, who hasn't obeyed. And needs the famous "8N" (November 8, 2012) when the "Casa Rosada" had a "Cacerolazo". Thanks for read it, --ArgLinker (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sex Slave Industry

We need an update to cover this aspect of Argentine society: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the same sex slave industry you can see in Europe and every other country in Latin America. Many of the the Argentine women who become sex slaves are taken to Spain and other European or South American countries, so it's an international problem, not local. And it certainly does not deserve a whole paragraph, or even a mention, as it's not something that defines the country. It's too specific.--Luuchoo93 (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with Luuchoo93. Sex trafficking is an international problem. It has its own Wikipedia entry and has no place in this article. Although it is a serious problem that exists, it is not rampant in Argentina by any means (the Yahoo article itself states that this case has shocked Argentine society). Every country has its social problems; these social problems are not mentioned in a country's Wikipedia article unless that social problem is excessive in that particular country, at a much higher frequency than in the rest of the world. Clearly, that's not the case here. The original unsigned commenter must have some personal grudge with Argentina, rather than a genuine concern for informing Wiki readers. Skyduster (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GDP (nominal) and GDP (PPP)

both are wrong in the right section. The GDP (nominal) should be 25 ° according to the link provided (in the 2012 estimate) and GDP (PPP) should be 21 ° (same).

--Bergesio (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

DELETE OLD PARAGRAGH There has always been discussion regarding the possibility of Argentina joining the Tri Nations, alongside the main Southern Hemisphere powers of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, although this proposal and a similar one to join the Super Rugby Southern Hemisphere professional league have both been consistently denied. More recently, Argentina has lobbied for inclusion in the Six Nations, which arguably makes more sense for the country, considering that most top Argentine players are based in Europe. In 2006, both Pichot and Loffreda publicly urged that Argentina be admitted to the Six Nations, with both on record as being willing to have the Pumas play their "home" fixtures in Europe (possibly in Spain or Portugal) to alleviate travel issues for all teams involved. However, while these discussions were ongoing, The Sunday Times of London reported in February 2007 that the sport's world governing body, the International Rugby Board, was brokering a deal with Tri Nations organiser SANZAR that could have seen Los Pumas admitted to that competition as early as 2008. However, this plan was not implemented; ultimately, after the Pumas' 2007 World Cup run, it was decided that the earliest that the team could enter a major international competition would be 2012, and that the Pumas would eventually join the Tri Nations. SANZAR has since extended a provisional invitation for Argentina to join an expanded Tri Nations in 2012.

INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH In 2012 Argentina joined Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in an expanded Tri Nations competition, which was renamed as The Rugby Championship. The Pumas performed impressively in their debut season with strong performances against the three of the world's best teams. SANZAR chairman Mike Eagle has also announced that he would like to see Argentina play a bigger role in southern hemisphere rugby's controlling body and eventually have their own Super Rugby conference.

ref: (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As rugby is largely amateur in Argentina, and the article is way over 110 kb of prose size, I removed the section. It's still included at the article Sport in Argentina, which can go in greater detail than the article about the country itself. Cambalachero (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

Under "Ethnography", I find:

"Most Argentines are descended colonial-era settlers, ..."

Please insert the word "from" just after "descended". (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Cambalachero (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Colombia is 3rd largest oil producer in SA after Venezuela and Brazil

It says, "In the present Argentina is the third largest oil producer in South America after Venezuela and Brazil." This is wrong due to Colombia being the third largest oil producer. List of countries by oil production states that Venezuela is 1st in South America, Brazil 2nd, Colombia 3rd (Respectively 22 in world) and Argentina as 4th (Respectively 26th in world).

These facts are also supported by the CIA World Factbook. Can someone hopefully change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andferya (talkcontribs) 00:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Argentina article glosses over the disappearances era

Hardly any mention is made to the disappearances (not even a direct link to and it reads as if the era was a conventional war which the government won. The following line (taken from could be used.

'It is thought that in Argentina, between 1976 and 1983, up to 30,000 people (8,960 named cases, according to the official report by the CONADEP)[5] were killed or disappeared.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Religious Chart

The religious chart is obviously fake, even it is quoted to the Mexican Census Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013


In the Argentina article, the plane for Aerolineas Argentinas is stetad incorrectly. The actual aircraft is an Airbus 340-300 not a Boeing 737-800 Cbassg (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Alexf(talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Viceroys galore

What's with all the viceroys? Has anyone considered sticking to one with a particularly important legacy, and moving the others to the article on History of Argentina?

Thanks. (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper Link Destination?

The link labeled "European" on the sidebar (97% [Ethnic] European) actually goes to a page called "White People," when it should probably go to "European_ethnic_groups" bzoomer16 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Done I changed the link to Ethnic groups in Europe Howicus (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


This article suffers from Main article fixation. It is meant to provide a summary of information detailed in other articles, not to develop the full topics here, much less to copypaste other articles in here. With 178 kb of readable text, the article is way above the acceptable article size, and it has to be condensed, not expanded.

There is also a Manual of style on images. We must avoid placing a huge number of images, specially when they break the layout, get the text sandwiched between 2 images, or don't really illustrate much. And we certainly don't need to place 2 images when we can place a single image with the content of the 2. For example, a photo with Néstor and Cristina Kirchner is better than 2 invidual photos of each one. Cambalachero (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is too long

I'm going to shorten some sections. Since changes to the header can be sensible, here yo have what I intend to do:

  • Remove the reference to "southern cone", it's a nice geographical detail but it's not vital.
  • Remove the "spanish-speaking nations" thing, and make it "argentina is the second largest country in LatAm"
  • Shorten the first paragraph to: "Argentina is a prominent country in Latin America, and a founding member of the UN. Because of its stability, and market size, it is classed by investors as a ..."

What do you think?

Argentino (talk/cont.) 23:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to trim it down, especially if the material is covered in other article. Just don't actually write "LatAm" :). Howicus (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is too long, yes, but the header is fine as it is (in fact when compared to most country article headers it falls a bit short)
  • The southern cone is not just a "geographical detail" but also a political one of high importance, as it's the most prosperous area in Latin America and it's further referred in the header.
  • The info about Spanish-speaking nations is a fact worth of highlight and it's only a line.
  • The blocks and international organizations paragraph is common practice for article leads (see Brazil, France, Italy, etc.)
Right now the article's body is the overlong part. Windroff (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We're doing a good job! I'll post this list to help us, so that we can compare Argentina with featured articles: Canada, Cameroon, Chad, Germany, India, Peru. That's what we have to aim for. Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Germany's article structure fits Argentina well, so I've moved sections accordingly. Argentina is 164,746 bytes, Germany is 156,640 and Canada is 134,497. Section importance weighting in Argentina is quite bad (history and geography sections shouldn't be much longer than Canada's, the sport section is way too long, specially when compared to Germany's). The article header is fine (all elements are there in brief: geographic location and neighbors, political organization summary, bloc membership, history summary, economic rank, power role), although it should add one line mentioning the huge diversity in climate, landscape and wildlife, which are one of Argentina's most notable aspects. Windroff (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Too many photos- what about culture and music?

The purpose of encyclopedic articles is to teach others about the topic. Unfortunately, some people believe they must use every photo available to make an article. I have uploaded and placed hundreds of photos, and learned the goal is to introduce new facts to others. Some articles, like biographies are best chronologically. But all articles should only use images and sound to reflect the text. Normal size should be 220px - 240px unless there is a special case. Too many photos ruin the article. They should help to learn and enhance the text. Sometimes sections of the article like "dance in Argentina" could be touched upon and the majority split to another article. One suggestion, I am surprised there are no music clips to show Argentinian traditional music, and now current music. However, I did notice.. there are too many photos on the page, per Wikipedia:IMAGE RELEVANCE. ¿Por Favor?! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Need space

In the biodiversity section it says thetegu instead of the tegu. Just need a space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2013

Could you please replace:

Atilio Malinverno


Atilio Malinverno

Gonzalov86 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 Done -- 00:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


There's a typo in the part where it says "Tourist destinations", fix it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it. OccultZone (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014

Under the nominal GDP ranking, Argentina should be "61st" instead of "61th". This is small error, but should be corrected. Thank you!

Wellemg00 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! LittleMountain5 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On freedom of speech after new media laws

I would like to point out that the authors used as a source for this statement are stating a political opinion, not to be presented as objective information, this is clear based on the fact that both Fraga and Szewach are journalists that work or have worked for tv shows and the newspaper La Nación (Fraga) which are all owned by Clarin, a company that is considered to be a monopoly under the new law and that is economically affected by it, whereas it's employees can't be considered neutral. The newspaper quoted also has a similar political position in Brazil, also not sure why that would be an objective source of information in general. I know this has been discussed before but I didn't see any comment on the sources.

I'll add this TELAM article about the resolution of the OAS (OEA) when journalists employed by the same company complained about alleged attacks on their freedom of speech:

If anything I would consider it more fitting if the concerns about freedom of speech where included in the article as an opinion and not as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bionicb (talkcontribs) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

La Nación is not owned by Clarín. And yes, a financial dependence may compromise a neutral point of view of the journalists: that's why we have to avoid sources financed by the government, such as Infobae. Clarín and La Nación, on the other hand, are financed solely by their own sales and audiences, the regular system of finance for trustworthy media in the world. Cambalachero (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Buenos Aires destroyed by "natives".

In the third paragraph of the "Spanish colonial era" section, it is stated that "Buenos Aires was established in 1536 but was destroyed by natives."


Is that all that is now known? Or is that a mark of how little it matters to this article just who the "natives" were.

This kind of contemptible dismissal is 19th century victors' history.

(No mention of invasion in this article, it seems.)

Earlier on in the article in the "Pre-Columbian era" section it is stated that, "The Charrua (which included the Minuane people), Yaros, Bohanes and Chanás (and Chaná-Timbú) were located in the actual territory of Entre Ríos and the Querandí in Buenos Aires."

The Wikipedia article, "Charrúa people" states that "The Charrúa killed Spanish explorer Juan Díaz de Solís during his 1515 voyage up the Río de la Plata."

So, any chance of the Querandí or the Charrúa being the "natives" who indeed so commendably saw off the first local excretion of the genocidal (thank you so much, Bernabé Rivera) freebooting foreign scumbags whose progeny, heirs and beneficiaries continue to occupy colonised people and their countries in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere in the world today today?

Dear friends, in closing let me suggest that instead of "natives" as above, the author of that term or whoever else is empowered and can be bothered, might (seeing there seems to be so much zealous guardianship about Argentinian history) find out who these defenders were - Querandí? Charrúa? Peter Pan? - and name them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My 'signature' for the Talk above follows.

The guidelines and explanations for the various methods of providing a 'signature' seem to make little if any sense. In Preview form, I see that my 'signature' below this changes nothing when compared with the no 'signature' for my main Talk above, other than my IP address, oddly enough.

The worth of any contribution or edit surely depends on the nature of the edit or contribution; if that's not so, how is the quality of my guff altered by four tildes, or by my name, which is Peter Doube.

Has anything to do with the gist and quality (such as it may be) of what I wrote above altered in any way now that I've added the four tildes and my actual name? Perhaps not, hmm? (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps until the identity of the 'natives ' is established and an appropriate correction is made by whoever has the esoteric key to the sacred inner sanctum of this article, the third paragraph could be altered to read,

"Buenos Aires was established in 1536 by Spanish invaders but was destroyed by local patriots." (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Argentina is not from Latin, but from Italian. All the references given in the article are not directly linked with the word Argentina. According to the Latin dictionary I own (Gaffiot, also on line here : [6]) and the on line dictionary mentioned in this article, there is no Latin word argentina, but Latin words Argentīni, a people of Apulia and Argentīnus, a god of silver, but no trace of Argentina or argentina. No entry about argentina in the Medieval Latin dictionary by Du Cange on line here : [7]

My conclusion is : there is no recorded Latin word argentina, but romance words : Italian argentina and French argentine meaning ″of silver″ (mentioned in French for the first time in the 12th century [1]). For sure, Italian argento and French argent ″silver″ are ultimately from vulgar latin argentu (Latin argentum), but the compounds It. argent-ina, Fr. argenti-ne, in fact the derived words It. argentina and Fr. argentine were created in Romance. The country name Argentina is first mentioned on a Venitian map in 1536, in Latin I think, but probably as a translation from Italian. The original expression used by the Italian explorers (like Giovanni Cabotto) was probably initialy terra argentina ″silver land″ (found as tierra argentina in a Spanish document) or less probably costa argentina.Nortmannus (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC) </ref>

Argentina is a Spanish word. According to the RAE dictionary, it's an adjective and a synonym of "argénteo" which means:
1. adj. De plata [(made) of silver)
2. adj. Dado o bañado de plata (made of or silver-coated)
3. adj. De brillo como la plata o semejante a ella en alguna de sus cualidades (With a brightness like silver or similar in any of its attributes).
Argénteo comes from the Latin 'argentĕus' and argentino from 'argentĭnus' ('argentum' means silver). Of course, you won't find "argentino/a" in any Latin dictionary, because it's a true SPANISH word (not Italian nor French) that COMES from LATIN. The same way, you won't find "family" in a Latin dictionary, but familĭa. Faezdel (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


The main map in which the Argentine Republic is highlighted in dark green at the top of this article must be reviewed. The fact that The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands, and the British Antarctic Territory are all highlighted in a lighter shade of green is simply unacceptable. Claimed territories should be devolved to a separate section elsewhere in the article, confusing readers with 50 Shades of Green to show Argentina's offensive territorial claims has no place at the top, in the main paragraph, as this can easily be confused with possibly being an overseas territory of some sort of the Argentine Republic. If you simply MUST keep these British Territories highlighted on the map, at least display them next to text saying 'UK', or 'British Overseas Territory', or 'Great Britain' or by placing the Union flag or local territorial flags next to each of those territories.

Johnxsmith (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

On that we disagree. Argentina has a long-standing claim. UK may administer them and consider them overseas territories but they were not purchased or ceded by any treaty, but by taking them in the 19th Century and expelling the small Argentine contingent there at the time. The claim that they were part of the Spanish territory ceded by the Treaty of Tordesillas, has at least as much validity as anything the UK can legally claim (desires of the local population notwithstanding as they are of course biased). We are not here to make politics or adjudicate claims. IMO they should be so marked as disputed in the UK articles too, until an international court (UN, The Hague, or whatever) finally resolves the matter. -- Alexf(talk) 16:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no! The South Atlantic Islands are claimed by Argentina, but should be clearly marked as not part of Argentina. You can make you claims, and make your claims you will. However, the South Atlantic Islands were British long before Argentina was even a country. If the Spanish had cared so much about them, they would have made attempts to get them back. This, unfortunately for you, did not happen; we have a population there of 3,000 and of them, only 3 wish not to remain British according to a recent referendum. You may have a long standing claim; but that claim, in a Wikipedia Article, should remain seated. ROC has a claim to mainland China, however this is never listed. The Vikings invaded the island of Britain long before the Normans, but does Norway lay claim to Britain? NO. There is no point spewing up this nonsense on your stupid, invalid claims to OUR territory. At the end of the day, our Navy is supreme and the islands are ours, and they always shall be. Confusing readers, making them think they are yours is unnecessary and plainly wrong. Johnxsmith (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

John, as an Argentinian I strongly dissagree with your comment. Furthermore, the vocabulary of the reply to Alex is out of line. You are welcome to state your opinions with courtesy and respect for other users. So I kindly suggest you rephrase your comment to make it sound less violent.

On topic, as Alex states, these territories ARE in the process of a dispute and we are not here to make politics or adjudicate claims. IMO they should be so marked as disputed in the UK articles too, until an international court (UN, The Hague, or whatever) finally resolves the matter. And this is not a forum, so ant discussion non-related should not be posted. Nightshade43 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the dispute itself, I have checked other articles of countries with ongoing territorial disputes, such as Chile, India or China, and this seems to be the standard: controlled territory in dark green, claimed territory in light green. The map of Argentina is simply following the same style. Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Mr 'Nightshade', may I bring your attention to the fact that in no way were any of my comments 'out of [order]', or 'violent'. My words were completely in order and were rather neutral in their aggressiveness. What is aggressive is Argentina attack a NATO country, displacing 3,000 Britons and defecating in a representative outlet of Her Majesty. As well as this, Cambalachero rightly said that controlled territories are marked in Dark Green. Therefore, disputed territories need no be marked on a map. The islands have been controlled by Britain since at least the 1800s, a matter which cannot be disputed. Also, The South Atlantic Islands are British Overseas Territories, they are not officially part of the United Kingdom and maintain a very high level of anonymity. The referendum earlier wasn't 'biased' as another Argentinean claimed. There are 3,000 people who live on these islands, of them only 3 claim not to be British. No Argentineans live there: only Britons. Consequently, you have no NEED for these islands: none of you live there, there is no oil of good quality, there is no arable land. They are, quite literally, a pile of rocks in the ocean. But this pile of rocks is home to 3,000 Britons, and you want to force them out of their country this cannot be happening! We will stand on principle, or we will not stand at all.

I conclude this discussion by reminding you that The Hague has no place in territorial disputes and that the UN can't even manage to sort out Taiwan even though the PRC is on its security council. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talkcontribs) 15:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Also remove the claim to Anarctica too please. It is illegal and invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you call an "aggressive (...) attack [to] a NATO country"? You should check your facts.
- The Brits founded a settlement there (the French had one too) on 1765 but they left 11 years later due to economic reasons and pressure from the Spanish authorities. After independence, the Buenos Aires government shipped a vessel there to take possesion on 1820 (there was no trace of the British or the French, of course). But the Brits came back on 1833 (57 YEARS LATER!), expelled the few settlers living there and took possesion of the islands again. Ain't that aggressive? Aggressive and totally illegal.
- When Argentina occupied the islands in 1982 (when the country was under the rule of an illegitimate government - it was their idea) no "Britons" were displaced or expelled. And they were not 3000 as you stated, they were less than 2000 then.
- The referendum is totally biased, because we're not talking about a native population but people that was introduced. Of course no Argentineans live there, since the few settlers had to left on 1833. This is not like the case of Easter Island or Nouvelle-Calédonie, for example.
- Nobody will force the current inhabitants out of their place (no country, because it's not a country). They can stay if the want to. You assume something that is wrong. In any case, it's plenty of "piles of rock" all around the UK if you feel so British and want to live there.
- You can't compare the case of Malvinas/Falklands with Taiwan. Taiwan is not under the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization. It's not a colony or a dependent territory, but and island that used to be a part of China but decided to stay apart from the communist People's Republic of China.
- The claim over Antarctica is as valid and legal as the Australian or New Zealander claims.
- No matter what you say, the Argentine claim over Malvinas is legal and it can be backed up by many geographical and historical facts. Faezdel (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Argentina "Introduction"

The last paragraph is not NEUTRAL, is tendentious, remarking negative issues about Argentina, and are not true at all. This last edition is not neutral as I said before, please leave the one it was time ago. It seems that The Economist wrote it, a britain magazine that is diametrically opposed to the Argentine Goverment. For the same, put in "Germany" article, what Hitler did, and all the people who killed, or for "Saudi Arabia" all the terrorist they have, etc. It's the same, tendentious, negative and not true at 100 per cent.

Sorry my english and Thanks!. Matías.

This is the article From then on–while massive European immigration waves radically reshaped its cultural and demographic outlook–Argentina enjoyed an historically almost-unparalleled increase in prosperity: by the early 20th century it already ranked as the seventh wealthiest[25] developed nation[26] in the world. After 1930, however, and despite remaining among the fifteen richest countries until mid-century,[25] it descended into political instability and suffered periodic economic crisis that sank it back into underdevelopment.[27]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the previous commenter. Argentina did not "sink back into underdevelopment". In fact, what happened was quite the opposite. During the first years of the century, the gdp of Argentina was high when compared with other nations, but so was it's unequality, which was much higher than it is now. On top of that, there were no industries, no manufacturing, no democracy, etc. Which means that it was in fact way less developed than what it became later. This article, published by government leaning newspaper but written by an independent researcher, points the fact pretty well. Most of argentine researchers and academy has long abandoned the false idea of a "country that was developed and went down to underdevelopment" since it was not at all what happened when you analyze the numbers just a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The entry must distinguish between area and number of Spanish speakers

The present entry reads "and the largest Spanish-speaking nation," which even includes a link to the list of Spanish-speaking nations by size of population. Yet the previous excerpt refers to area and could be misconstrued. A reader might understand that Argentina has the largest Spanish-speaking population, which it clearly does not. I suggest that the entry be modified to "and the largest Spanish-speaking nation in terms of area." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Héctor Fernández L'Hoeste (talkcontribs) 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


97% european, 3% mestizo???!!! Wtf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

It is: República Argentina [reˈpuβlika aɾxenˈtina]) is a federal republic located in southeastern South America. NOT República Argentina [reˈpuβlika aɾhenˈtina]) is a federal republic located in southeastern South America. Jorcorbaan (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done [ˈe.t͡ʃo] Anon126 (talk - contribs) 08:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2014

Just found a logo for Argentina. Can somebody put it there? (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not explained what you have found, or where you have found it - so how can anybody carry out your request?
I don't know what you mean by "a logo for Argentina" but we normally only include a country's flag and coat of arms, so it may well not be suitable. - Arjayay (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2014

The information the CIA is unreal, any Argentine knows, is a mestizo country entirely. According to the last official survey, used in the wikipedia page in Spanish, Argentina article, 56% of the population has at least one Indian ancestor. I think that could contrast the information the CIA as it is quite racist and untrue. Many serious studies claim that over 40% of the population is mestizo and not 3% as it says. You only need to travel to Argentina to check it, it's a big country is not only Buenos Aires. Jujuy, Salta, Formosa, Mendoza, Chaco Argentina and most of its population is not European please hope that they get that table from the beginning of the article, or at least put more information studies, I think it's wrong just listed that information as it is unreal. In most language articles related to Argentina has included this last study, the most current and serious. I propose to add, not delete the other information, but put the two please. to verify the information. I know my English is not good, but the studio is really good and used all the items except this one outdated information is used. As was shown by genetic testing of the figure is much higher mestizos to information that says the CIA. clarify if it is true that 90% are of European descent, but also has some 56% Indian ancestor. An estimated 90% of the population has some European ancestor, especially Italy and Spain, 56% have indigenous ancestors, and about 5% an African ancestor. I think you need to add this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done Edit request templates are used for suggesting exact changes (i.e., change x wording to y wording) --NeilN talk to me 12:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I propose to add important information to the article. How do I do?-- (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Agentine anthem

The words of the anthem are not properly centered in the black window, and as such can't be read. (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

good luck to argentina in the world cup soccor finals.i am joey shikora from the US. bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Minority Language: Welsh

In the Chubut province of Argentina welsh is spoken in many parts and each 2 times I've added welsh as an minority language to the page it has been removed. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That information is already in the Argentina#Languages section. There are at least 21 minority languages; such a list would be to long for the infobox. Windroff (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Why there are so many differences in the nominal gdp between the Spanish and English versions?

Why use estimates when actual data is at hand?

and my last question: Why is Argentina placed 29th when in the link provided the lowest rankin is 26 (U.N. and IMF) and the higher is 21 (World Bank)? why not use the World bank ranking as in the case of other countries?

Sorry for my english, thanks for your time.

--Bergesio (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

the difference between the articles is because the spanish article use the Word Bank data based on the INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos,ENG: National Institute of Statistics and Censuses) and the English one use the IMF data, that it's based in their own statistics

La diferencia es porque el en ingles esta basado en el FMI y el de español esta basado en el banco mundial(mas o menos eso lo que puse, por si no lo entendes bien)--Chueco23456 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes at lede

Argentina is not "subdivided" into twenty-three Provinces. It is a federation of 23 Provinces and an autonomous city, as stated by its Constitution. The resulting redaction is confusing and redundant ("a federal republic .... which exist under a federal system"). (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

National Logo?

Argentina does not have a "national logo", but a national coats of arms, which is already depicted (Coat of Arms of Argentina). The "logo" is not a national symbol, nor is it Constitutional; it is just Nation branding, which is not permanent by definition (it was chosen in 2006, see here). In fact, the logo is officially considered to be the "marca país" (here), wich literally means "Country branding". Please, remove it fron the infobox. (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Four days and no answer for such a relevant article? (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


There has been vandalism in population. Change that because wha the CIA Factbook says is much different. What appears now in population is a manipulation from an study which said that 67% of Argentines are white and 30% mestizo (mixed white and indian) while 3% are native. Wikpeida should change that because it is vandalism. Thanks.-- (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. The CIA factbook states a very different figure. Please use this figure or add a source for the one included.

GDP (nominal) and GDP (PPA)

According to the information provided by List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) both (GDP and GDP PPA) appear either outdated or misspelled in this article.

Thanks for your time

--Bergesio (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Word "Crisis"

Shouldn't Argentina have suffered periodic economic /crises/, rather than periodic economic crisis? (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

La Argentina

The reason Argentina takes the feminine pronoun in Spanish despite starting with an "a" is that the "a" is not stressed. Only words staring with stressed a- or ha- take the masculine pronoun él.

"In the Spanish language, "Argentina" is feminine ("La Argentina"). This makes it an exception to the rule that any noun beginning with the letter A takes the masculine pronoun "el" ("el agua", e.g.)"...and "La Armada" -The Army-, "La Ardilla" -the Squirrel"-? "La Azotea" -the rooftop-? "La Acera" -the sidewalk-, "La Arruga" -the wrinkle-? and to many more "exceptions"? I hope someone will change that in the article, because it is a gross error. Hernán -- (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is correct, I agree. The one that wrote the statement that is in the article I pressume doesn't know very much spanish. "agua", "águila", "ánfora", "área", etc. are nouns with stressed "A", that's why goes with "el" as article, despite the fact that are feminines. "Argentina" has its stress in the "TI" syllable, so, the article is "la", same as the examples put above by Hernán. I request somebody with clearance change it as soon as possible. Thanks. Luiscardo (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done It's not an "exception" to anything: Noyster (talk), 11:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Request edit of transport section

I'm requesting an edit of this section, mainly to update figures to those matching Transport in Argentina, but also to incorporate recent developments on the re-nationalisation and refurbishment of railways. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


The link to Mesopotamia, Argentina, leads to the ancient mesopotamia page

Fixed: Noyster (talk), 09:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ CNRTL (French) [8]