Talk:Argentina/Archive 5

message: I have ammended the infobox to read at the bottom in reference to the Falklands Islands, an area of Antarctica, South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands "Sovereignty of this additional land is disputed. Hopefully this will clear up the situation regarding that as the previous statement was misleading, suggesting that the additional land was under direct and undisputed argentine control. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it again because it was removed without good reason. You cannot simply put it in the userbox as it was, that is a highly ambigious way of wording the additional land to such an extent as to make it seem like the land is actually governed by Argentina when it isn't. Whether or not is been 'annexed' by the UK doesn't change the fact that Argentina doesn't have control over the islands at present. If that changes i'll be sure to remove that comment from the Argentina page and add it to the UK page. I will now be watching this article to ensure it sticks this time, or that there is a full and proper discussionn if people want to remove it. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty of Falklands/Anatarctic/South Sandwich ammendment to the infobox. 

message: I've just reverted this about corruption in Argentina, which I found anecdotical, unverifiable, original research, and essentially an uncalled-for op-ed. Except for the transparency index. I guess there's a place for that, but does it belong in the main article? Is anybody up to the unfortunately huge task of writing a well-sourced, neutral article about Corruption in Argentina?  —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corruption has a wide meaning, and such article would be only a collection of pieces of other articles. I think its better to have by cases information in the corresponding articles (Menem, etc.) Nevertheless, categories do exist in the Wikipedia, for instance :Category:Political corruption in France, :Corruption in Kenya, and :Category:Political corruption in general. Mariano(t/c) 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant a place where public perceptions of corruption, important (historical or history-altering) acts of corruption, assessments of corruption by external organizations, etc. could be mentioned. Not sure it's possible, though. Some articles about corruption scandals would be nice (the labor law Senate bribes come to mind). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption in Argentina 

message: The following is partly useful and partly common knowledge, but I think we should have a source for some of the statements, and take care of the unencyclopedic tone. There's simply no "Porteño dialect", and I have no idea what the editor meant by "softer".
:The Buenos Aires or Porteño dialect is the most recognizable of Argentine accents, but other provinces have distinct accents as well.  In Santa Fé province the accent is similar to Porteño but "softer."  The speech of many in Entre Rios Province is quite similar to the accent of Uruguayans.  Many residents of Córdoba and San Luis provinces speak with a famous sing-song in their speech, which some find endearing while others difficult to understand.  In Mendoza Province, the accent and vocabulary are a bit closer to Chilean.
—Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from language section 

message: In my humble opinion this sub-section does not belong in administrative divisions section, but either under the new Population section or Demographics, since it deals with population figures and... demographics! (urbanization) I submit this observation for the administrators and others who reads this to decide. Thank you for your patience with my breach of etiquette, now that I have read the guidelines more thoroughly I'm am trying to follow them strictly. The dugout 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urbanization 

message: I have been trying to streamline the section I wrote on Music (probably my strongest area of contribution along with geography and demographics), to the point where I cannot trim any further and keep the information currently there readable. I have noticed that the article on Music in Argentina could use further expansion and I am willing to contribute to it. But I have a question:
Can I just transfer some of what I wrote here under 'Music', there? (cut and paste). They are my own words, of that you can be assured. All the information there basically came off my years of study and hundreds of articles and books that I have read, and of course general 2nd hand kwowledge. So is can I just do that? Of course, I would expand upon them significantly, and have the ability to do so, once I paste to that article (it's just to help me by simply just expanding upon what I wrote, and eventually the final product would look different anyways)
By doing this I could further cut down on the size of the paragraphs in this main Argentina article. A speedy reply would really be appreciated, as I would like to undertake this ASAP, while I have the leisure time to do so. Thank you. The dugout 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! As a general rule, you don't add lots of information without a verifiable source, but that's more to avoid original research in problem areas. Unless you have some strange theories about Argentine music, I'd say it's completely OK. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: For as long as I can remember I have read in argentine and international fact articles that the lowest point in Argentina is located at the Peninsula Valdes area, about 40 meters below sea level, which also is the lowest point in South America. But in the Geography of Argentina article (and the Santa Cruz Province article), it claims that the lowest point is at a location in Santa Cruz Province, -100 meters below sea level. I for one never heard of this.
I have been checking my hard copy sources and online and cannot find any independent substantiation for this, except the two wikipedia articles. This is a notice that if I cannot find any other verification, I will correct both articles and put the lowest elevation point in Argentina (and South America) as the Peninsula Valdez location. 
EDIT: AMAZINGLY, at the website graphicmaps.com, the South America page indicates the lowest point as the Valdez peninsula at -105 feet or -40 meters below sea level ( http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/sa.htm ). But the Argentina page indicates the lowest point as 'Laguna del Carbo, just to the north of Puerto Santa Cruz - 344 ft. (105 m)' !!!!!!! ( http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/ar.htm ) Unbelievable!! This reminds me of that joke that goes 'Maradona was the best football player in the world, and in Argentina he was among the top 10'.... LMAO.
It would appear we have a minor mystery developing... Obviously they both cannot be correct, and it's amazing this website has not caugtht this contradiction.  
Every single other source is saying it's peninsula Valdez, and makes no mention of the other site in Santa Cruz. So... either that is an amazing coincidence and they are all wrong (as are my hard sources and what I had believed ), or the one site is wrong (well, half wrong as they did put Valdez in the South America part). I have to go with what I knew, my books say and all the sources say (even the one with the contradiction), and conclude Valdez and not Santa Cruz is the correct lowest point... but I wont make any changes based on the fact that Wikipedia claims it has been PROVEN not to be the lowest point (in the extremes on Earth article)... 
This is all quite puzzling.
The dugout 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest elevation point: Valdez Peninsula or San Julian? 

message: I know this is a bit of a sensitive subject judging by previous discussion in this page about similar issues (though, quite frankly I don't see why), but the culture sections states Argentina's culture is primarily based on European culture. Now this is 100% correct, but to not also say that gaucho culture is firmly a mixture of european and native american, and that in the north of Argentina some native american or 'South American' customs are prevalent is somewhat misinformative in my view.
Along these same lines, no mention at all is made of the afro-argentines, of the past and today. This subject in particular is the focus of MUCH debate I know, even in intellectual and research circles, but I would like to add a few things about their contributions to Argentine culture and history. I just wanted to get some feedback here about both suggestions before I proceed. Thanks! The dugout 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South American cultural influence and Afro-Argentines 

message: This article is in need of a major cleanup. I've started removing some content that was obsolete, or too detailed, or unsourced/unverifiable. In particular, I've taken out the issue of mestizo population, mostly, since mestizo is not well defined, and stats are not tuned for that (but there are stats about ethnicity, if not in the main census). I also took out the "beggars in the street" sentence, which is sentimentalish and irrelevant for the big picture. The discussion about Martín Fierro and Facundo is OK but seems too detailed; I removed the expression "failed state" because it's a modern term and politically controversial, and unless somebody has analyzed the dichotomy using those terms, it's also original research.
We need to source everything clearly and abundantly. At this time the article weighs 71 KB and it's clearly getting bloated, so let's concentrate on streamlining the major points. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: As you can see, I'm working almost full time during my off-period to improve this article! I'm somewhat shy of being 'bold' as they tell me, so it was hard to move 'urbanization' fro Administrative Regions to Demographics, but I think it ties in much better there and is in line with all other country articles, and with Argentina's own population and demographics section.
I want to expand a little on the vegetation and animals of Argentina, as the current section is seems whoefully inadequate for the size and variety of the country (I'm a believer that certain countries need bigger sections in one thing than in others: for example, European countries should have a longer history section than American nations, on the other hand American nations are much larger and deserve extended geography sections).
Also, the economy section dwells too much in the 'argentine crisis', to which there is already a devoted article to and several other mentions in this article. In fact, Argentina's economy section on this page has ABSOLUTELY NO information on what the country produces, what it's major industries are, and it's exports, etc, etc. To me that is a diservice. So I will expand Economy to include such information, which perhaps will mean trimming a bit the current information there (or creating a new subsection for transportation with highway, railway and waterway info). The dugout 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora/Fauna and Economy 

message: I have decided to cut a bit music. Not because I don't like it, in fact it does perfectly summarize all the major styles currently popular in Argentina, but because it is simply a bit too long. Preferably, I would like to make the whole music section fit in a normal computer screen. But I'm not sure what I'll cut yet.
I have saved the information and once I am done with the Argentina article I will include whatever information I take out here in the relevant articles or argentine rock, cumbia villera, tango, etc. The dugout 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music II 

message: I've more or less placed this section in agreement with Religion in Argentina, but the numbers are so wildly variable that it's difficult to summarize them. I left the "80% Catholic" alone because one study says 77% and another one says 83%. The problem is the number of Jews - the CIA says they're 2%, the US Department of State says they're 0.8%. I don't want to make this section larger, but then what?  —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: As you can see, the article is far more 'complete' than it was just a week ago. It had major holes such as no mention on education, science, print and media, a very poor plant and animal section. It also suffered from poor headings, topics under wrong headings, and poor flow (going from say, administrative regions to urbanization). Pictures did not match the topic discussed next to them.
Not that I like bragging, but the article now is looking much more robust and well constructed, subdivided, and complete with facts. 
It is also about 85kb long. I have trimmed off all the sections unnecesary words (Like turning something like "The southern regions of the country are more inhabited by several species of animal life" to "The southern regions are inhabited by more species"), sentences with irrelevant information, etc. I will continue trimming things I don't see as fundamental.
But it is also a fact that many of the sections are cut down the near basic info already.
So the next step is first to create new articles for sections that have been created here that have no articles. The 2nd step would be to expand those sections that have good info here but their main articles are stubs. A third step would be to harmonize or expand the remaining articles. Of course this would all take a while to do, so in the immediate this article will not get much smaller. That said, I'm basically done with my contributions to this article (with only a brief overview of painters and sculputors, a mention of theater in Argentina which is very developed, and basic info on the military and fashion the only other things that are uncovered here).
I have seen that the policy of Wikepedia is for articles to not go much beyond 40 or 50kb. Many country articles however clearly surpass this. I generally agree with the Wikipedia policy, but some leniency for country articles should be given, considering that even stripping all the sections of the bare info (if the country has a long enough history, quite varied geography, and a very important cultural contribution), may yield articles longer than this. I know, (from my own experience too!) that many people, if they want info on a country, will ONLY go to the country article and if they need info on geography or music will go to the appropriate subsection and WONT bother much on going to the particular article. Out of lazyness really... I have been guilty of that myself. When people need info they believe that whatever is on the main country article is what really matters, so in my humble opinion sometimes trimming the sections too much and hoping for people to go to the specific articles is not always the case.
But let me state that it is my goal to eventually downsize this article, once appropriate separate articles for the larger sections have been updated, expanded, and harmonized. Everyone's opinion is welcome and sought :-) The dugout 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina 

message: I'm wondering if anyone knows why the mention of Uruguay being more 'european' descended than Argentina was taken off.
The way the sentence currently reads 'more so than any other Latin American country', regarding European component to the population, is erroneous. Uruguay is most deffinately more europan (italian and spanish) descended, the country has less mestizos. The dugout 15:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uruguay ?? 

message: Ok, I will leave the opening statement of this section as is, since it was changed back, even as I don't think is entirely accurate (the reason I saw this as important is because it may jeopardize readers from going further and trusting the information if they don't agree fully with the opening sentence). The dugout 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: In the history section there is absolutely no mention of San Martin. If, as we all know, that is Argentina's most important figure, ever, it seems rather odd that in the history section of the country there is not even a mere mention of him!!
So I will add a short paragraph on him.The dugout 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Martin Mention 

message: I was surprised to see at region in Argentina named Mancabia, which I not only never heard of, but of which there's is not references in the Internet. The region seams to overlap the northern Patagonia and the humid pampas. I'm not sure if this is what is sometimes called the Temperate Pampas, but in either case I suggest we change the name to this section, or merge it with the Pampa one.
Also article Regions of Argentina should be updated (it's just a stub), and referenced from this one. Perhaps we could also just move all the regions' information to the specific article and leave just a short reference here. (The article is already more than 3 times the suggested maximum size...) Mariano(t/c) 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mancabia 

message: Im just gonna suggest a few more argentine meat cuts to place in the small food part: Vacío, Lomo (in english, loin), tira de asado.
If anyone can think of more, just paste them here.
Thanks,
Slartibartfast1992 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Argentine beef. Bife de Chorizo, Chinchulines trensados, mollejas, matambre, bola de lomo, ... Mariano(t/c) 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat 

message: I edited the section with the agrrement of all these regular users.  Please Dunadan, discuss before edited without consensus:
From the discussion in the Archive 4
I have found an article (and other like it) that prove it is pretty much impossible to prove Native American heritage. http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html
(24.60.161.63 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnicity is a very complicated issue, and I happen to disagree with the result of this discussion. For starters, demographic statistics are not perfect, and are based on people's responses. The census in Argentina, in terms of ethnicity, was based simply on self-ascription: that is, they asked the individuals whether they consider themselves Mestizo, Amerindian or of European ancestry. Needless to say, very few individuals self-ascribe as Mestizo and Amerindian. Genetic studies and their finding reports, which suggest a 56% of the population with some Amerindian ancestry, are blatantly ignored in this article, even though they are included in :es:Argentina and :es:Composición étnica de Argentina, all properly referenced, which suggests the information presented here in the English Wikipedia is bordering on WP:POV. If this is a contentious issue that is discussed ad nauseum, then I propose that we Request for Arbitration so that all arguments, fully referenced, are presented to stand scrutiny by external editors to suggest and unbiased conclusion in this particular matter. --the Dúnadan 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is an issue, because I disagree with the solution that has been imposed so far. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dúnadan. This article has been POV for far too long. Mariokempes 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I am Requesting for Arbitration. I will let you know about the process, and how every concerned editor can participate. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: I've made this less partisan but have not verified what is said.  There are very few references in this section which is worrying SuzanneKn 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport

message: I'm copying this from my talk page. The guy has a point, but I'm not sure what to do. The relevant diff is not helpful anyway, and I know next to nothing about this topic, or where to look.
Hola, soy galio de la es: con unos minutos de tiempo libre que no bastan para loguear allá. Cuestión que le pasé una revisada rápida al artículo Argentina en inglés y aparentemente, en algún momento entre la vez anterior que lo leí y esta, alguien modificó el apartado sobre transporte. Donde antes decía que la red ferroviaria cayó en desuso y deterioro notorio desde la liquidación de FA en 1993, hoy dice algo como que "después de décadas de falta de mantenimiento y malos servicios, los ferrocarriles se privatizaron en 1993". No sólo es tendencioso, sino que omite la parte más importante —el hecho de que hubiera trenes hasta el '93 y no después— y para peor es falso.
La cantinela de la falta de mantenimiento es más para Dromi que para una enciclopedia, y aunque desde 1955 las sucesivas administraciones se encargaron de ir destruyendo los ferrocarriles, decir que FA no hacía mantenimiento es una mentira infundada como decir que Gas del Estado no hacía obra. Hasta 1993 los 34.000 kilómetros de vías entonces activos eran operables, con una mayoría de vías en buen estado, servicios de pasajeros a todo el país. Incluso durante los años '80 se hicieron cosas, como la electrificación del Roca, la nueva señalización del Urquiza —que ALL desmanteló—, etc. Perdón que te lime, pero un poco de evidencia empírica para respaldarme no sobra. ¿Podrás hacer algo? Los historiales de la en: me pierden, pero en algún lado está la frase vieja. Saludos y gracias. --200.85.115.19 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the diff you cite refers to my edits, where I tried to improve the phrasing of what was written before. I agree that it might sound POV as it stands now, but I don't agree with the statement that the trains disappeared only after the privatization; that's clearly biased without discussing the politics behind the lack of maintenance in the railway system. Long distance trains disappeared long before the privatization in many places, and the fact that sleeper bars made of quebracho were for sale at auctions all over the country I think prevented trains from using the railway, wouldn't it? I couldn't find the version the user talks about, but reading his opinion I think I support the current version over it. -- dockingmantalk 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only problem is the lack of sources. It doesn't matter what our opinion is; we need objective assessments of the state and quality of railways, which is a huge topic in the case of Argentina, and a very significant one as well. If you have sources that you can cite, or people you can consult about this, please put them forth. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railways in Argentina 

message: An anon user was moving things around here and I reverted the change. Have a look at the history and see if you want to leave a comment here. I am quite happy with the section as it is, I think. --Guinnog 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a small black population in Argentina, which has now virtually disappeared. It is absolutely inaccurate that there ever was a large enough black population in the country that outnumbered non-blacks. As in the rest of the continent Arfican blacks were brought in as slaves but in much smaller numbers than in other countries in the region. Initially there was a majority of natives; those populations were indeed decimated by disease, slavery and massacres. As late as the mid- to late-19th century there were "campañas al desierto," state-organized military expeditions to the south (Patagonia) to take land and eliminate natives. Corto 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics section

message: Hey guys, I keep on seeing people changing the GDP per capita in the table; the changes are reverted very quickly because they are anonymous edits without an edit summary. However, now I see the point of the changes: the data currently in the article looks like the one from 2005, the updated values are in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, 2006 and are actually the ones  that editors were adding, but without sourcing. I updated the data and filled the edit summary, hope it's OK. Cheers! -- dockingmantalk 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Sorry I didn't do it myself, but I'm loosing too much time cheking my overgrown watchlist for vandalism... Mariano(t/c) 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleased to help! -- dockingmantalk 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: Someone change the demograohics sections with incorrect information again.  Pablo you are the one that keep this articles so well written could you ask for protection against vandalism???.
 
Someone deleted the info of Galicians Basque and Catalans being the most important ethnic Spanish groups in the country.  Who could do that? I changed it again.  I think we don't even need sources about that fact do we?  Go to the Basque Argentinian official site 10% of the population is Basuqe!! and 80% of the Spanish immigration in the 20th century was Galician!.  God! WHo change that?? It couldn't be n Argentinian who pass primary school god!!.  I hate people without sources and reliable information who change data.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.16.20.183 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 November 2006.
:I moved your comments down here and signed them for you. Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, and sign them using four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep track of who is saying what and when.
:There are many people working to keep this article well-written, not just me, but most of us also have other things to do. It's important that wrong data added to the article can be spotted quickly and removed. The best way to do this, when the data is clearly not correct, is by reverting (see Help:Reverting).
:The demographics section of this article has been a problem since... ever. At least on my watch, anything edited in that section and others without a good justification will be reverted as soon as I spot it; but I'm not watching all the time. I could protect the page, but this is not vandalism, it's simply people altering an article to reflect what they believe is true, without taking the time and effort to check the facts. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's playing with the demographics section? / Who change the major ethnic Spanish groups

message: I corrected the country's land area to its real one of 2,766,890, as it's usual that Argentines add the Falklands and other British islands to their maps, land area, etc. 
Same goes to Antarctic lands, where no nation on earth has sovereignity in. It's just a protected area by Australia, Chile, Argentina, UK, US, Russia, Norway and France. But no one of these, including Argentina, has sovereignity rights upon this land, so you should not add the land area of Antarctica in Argentina's one (no one of the other nations does so). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theiasofia (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina's land area