Talk:Politics of Argentina

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cotrisan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Major update
This page is frightfully out of date, antedating the upheavals of December 2001. Unfortunately my knowledge and available time are unequal to the task. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * I've done what I can. My POV is probably showing all over the place, so please check. The CIA Factbook is alright for numbers, but not NPOV at all when it comes to politics, BTW. --Pablo D. Flores 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other data and summary
Why don't we just delete that whole section? It's full of outdated CIA info that has been covered elsewhere, and it's impossible to maintain. Just a suggestion (before I feel bold enough to remove it myself). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would leave some things, such as "International organization participation" and "Parties and leaders" (as "Current Main Parties and their leaders"). Somewere a reference to Ley Sáenz Peña, obligatoriety and the definition of voting universe should be placed. Mariano (t/c) 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The parties and leaders stuff is in List of political parties in Argentina, though a summarized version could remain here. What I meant was taking out the CIA data as a separate section; the article is no longer based on that. Of course, redundant and outdated data should be removed completely. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Together with the CIA tag, shot'em! Mariano (t/c) 05:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics vs Government
Some thoughts... This article, although named politics, is largely about government, which redirects here. Perhaps it is time to split the two subjects: Mtiedemann 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Government needs much more detail on provincial and municipal government and on the administrative bureaucracy of government.
 * Politics needs bringing up to date - Kirchner now sets the political scene, within and outside the Peronist movement, and opposition is focused around individuals not ideas (Lavagna, Macri, Lopez Murphy, etc).
 * I have updated the articles on many of the major parties of the last decade, but the current status of the PJ is an issue, and of Duhalde, Menem and Rodríguez Saá within it.


 * I'm affraid I won't be of real help on these topics... Mariano (t/c) 07:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the idea of splitting. I promise I'll try to help. I'm only fearing problems with original research in the field of politics. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just done. Still needs what Martín listed before. The split articles are a bit raw so to speak, so please check them. I've separated the topics with the following criterion: parties, policies, current members of whatever, la coyuntura, etc. belong to Politics; institutions, laws, formal composition of government bodies, go in Government. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Beri bel dan! Mariano (t/c) 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent. I've added something on modern provincialism and PRO - resisting analysing PJ situation until I can find reliable sources. Provincial government section, etc on new Government page is also very good - I have change the politics template to point to the government page now. Martín (saying/doing) 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Important notice
The government section of the "Outline of Argentina" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist.

Thank you.

Elections and party-system outline
The political landscape is very much outdated in these certainly dynamic topics. Anyone would like to help translating the Spanish wiki most recent information about the subject? Salut, everyone --IANVS (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Splitting presidential and legislative elections
I think we should seriously consider splitting the articles on presidential and legislative elections in Argentina. The mid-term election system for Congress makes the articles difficult to navigate. For example, if you are on the article Argentine legislative election, 2005, then the next place you end up chronologically is the Argentine general election, 2007, which is fine. Then, however, the next election listed is 2011, skipping the 2009 mid-term elections. This is very impractical, and leads to a certain degree of negligence of the legislative elections in favor of the full general elections every 4 years. Therefore, I propose splitting the article types; if there are no objections I might go ahead with it.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

History of democracy and non-democracy
Text was removed from the lead summarizing which periods Argentina was a democracy and which periods it was not. It was sourced to a peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press book. I think this text should be restored. The edit summary for the removal claimed it was "editorializing" which it most certainly is not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this text is perfectly fine. Neutralitytalk 16:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is editorialising because it is not for you or Wikipedia to call it 'unstable' or not. That is blatantly opinionated. What makes it stable or not? What about other countries? Argentina is not the first nor the last country to have suffered from coups. Secondly, the fact that it was sourced from that book is irrelevant, because in no paragraph does the book come to such conclusion (I did check the cite FYI). Finally, adding the statement to the beginning of the article is giving it undue weight. Argentine politics is way more than just coups and military juntas. I'd suggest you brush up on Argentine politics first before forming an opinion so hastily. --MewMeowth (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First, the text is cited to a book published by Cambridge University Press; it is not something made up by Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors.
 * Second, as to "What about other countries?" &mdash; that's of course immaterial here, since this article is about Argentina, not other countries.
 * Third, you assert that the book cited does not support the text. That is incorrect. The text said that "," which is directly supported by the cited source, which says in part (p. 7): ""
 * --Neutralitytalk 16:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not within Wikipedia's stated goals to summarise Argentine politics as 'unstable'. That's OP's opinion, backed by a book. You could add the quote from the book, verbatim, somewhere within the article avoiding any argumentative language (and besides, I'd say it's up to the reader to come to a conclusion.) In any case, this article is an outline of modern-day politics of the country and should not give undue weight to historical events, especially in the lead section (Argentina has been in democracy for almost 37 years now, plus there are several articles covering Argentine history, including coup d'etats.) Most corresponding articles, for example, Politics of Kosovo, do not give unnecessary importance to historical events. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the history of Argentine politics is relevant to an article on the politics of Argentina. In any event, there's no basis for an assertion that we must quote from sources directly &mdash; in fact, that's poor style when the material quoted is not meaningfully contested or contentious among the relevant community of experts (which here would be political scientists). I also don't see any "argumentative language" in the proposed text, since the statement the Argentina has experienced various democratic reversals in the 20th century is obvious, factual, and well-supported by the sources sources. However, in an effort to address your complaint that the addition gave insufficient attention to modern Argentine democracy, then I propose the following expansion (cited to two more university-press published sources). Neutralitytalk 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "In the 20th century, Argentina experienced significant political turmoil and democratic reversals. Between 1930 and 1976, the armed forces overthrew six governments in Argentina; and the country alternated periods of democracy (1912–1930, 1946–1955, and 1973–1976) with periods of restricted democracy and military rule. Following a transition that began in 1983, full-scale democracy in Argentina was reestablished. Argentina's democracy endured through the 2001–02 crisis and to the present day; it is regarded as more robust than both its pre-1983 predecessors and other democracies in Latin America."


 * I think this is a fair summary, gives the historical context well, and is obviously very well-sourced. Let me know if you have objections to this. Neutralitytalk 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objection in six days' time, I have added this content to the article. Neutralitytalk 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)