Talk:Argentina/Archive 1

message: === GDP ===
The GDP per person can`t be right.
See: 
Also check the IMF page for Argentina: 
This is an indication that the wealth distribution is, to say the least, awful.
:The GDP per capita reported in Economy of Argentina seems ridiculously high, but maybe that's because it's measured in purchasing power parity. I'm not sure of this, so correct me if I'm wrong. BTW most the economy article is  outdated to the point of being useless... --Pablo D. Flores 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: The GDP per person can`t be right.
See: 
Also check the IMF page for Argentina: 
This is an indication that the wealth distribution is, to say the least, awful.
:The GDP per capita reported in Economy of Argentina seems ridiculously high, but maybe that's because it's measured in purchasing power parity. I'm not sure of this, so correct me if I'm wrong. BTW most the economy article is  outdated to the point of being useless... --Pablo D. Flores 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: The first paragraph talks about "Sierra del Plata", which is grammatically incorrect Spanish. I assume it is meant to be either "Sierra de la Plata" or "Sierra de Plata". Does anyone know the correct phrase? —Bkell 21:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  de la plata / del plata 

message: The Argentine constitution of 1994 makes it clear that the official name of the country is Nacion Argentina, not Republica Agentina. This section seems to my limited Spanish to make this point:
*Articulo 35o.- Las denominaciones adoptadas sucesivamente desde 1810 hasta el presente, a saber: Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata; Republica Argentina, Confederacion Argentina, seran en adelante nombres oficiales indistintamente para la designacion del Gobierno y territorio de las provincias, empleandose las palabras "Nacion Argentina" en la formacion y sancion de las leyes.
Adam 06:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nacion Argentina / Republica Argentina 

message: I removed the phrase "without legal basis" from the Template:Argentina infobox. I think the NPOV way is just stating there are claims, just as in the Antarctica article. SpiceMan 06:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Countries in which their president is both head of state and head of government, display it in a single "President" entry. (Brazil, Mexico, and United States for example. Seems a "New World" government scheme). Then again is a new layout, I don't know. If I can make it clearer to you, the Cabinet Chief is a designated by the President, and his/her main function is to check that Ministers  (of Foreing Affairs, Education, etc, etc) can work consistently as a block, and that they work along the President's line of thought. In Argentina, it's widely regarded as a fuse/buffer between the Cabinet of Ministers and the President. I got to go, I'll check things up later. Thanks for all the good work. --SpiceMan 08:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine claims 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Argentina article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 09:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Argentina|Link suggestions]] 

message: Okay, first of all, why does Argentina need to be described as "cone-shaped"?  How many other country articles start by describing the shape of the country in geometrical terms?
Secondly, how can it be "cone-shaped" at all?  A cone is a three-dimensional shape caused by rotating a triangle around one of its verticals.  (My geometrical terminology may not be precise, but hopefully you get the idea.)  For a country to be cone-shaped, it should basically look like a gigantic volcanic island.  Perhaps Argentina does look slightly like a cone lying on its side, but you know what you get when you lay a cone on its side?  You get a triangle.
And thirdly, it's not triangular.  Its borders are normal geographic ones, which is to say not straight lines.  I could see calling Colorado and Wyoming rectangular, because their borders were arbitrarily fixed as straight lines, but Argentina's are based on mountains and river valleys and coastlines, and are anything but straight.
If this is a mistranslation of some common Spanish description used for the country, then I will relent, but otherwise that unhelpful phrase will be removed. Alfvaen 05:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I concur. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding related to the (widespread and also wrong) usage of Cono Sur (Southern Cone) to refer to, well, the Southern countries of America; Argentina, Uruguay, Chile,  perhaps Paraguay and Bolivia.
:Ejrrjs | What? 10:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cone-shaped?? 

message: Whoever wrote "LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS" right above, I'd like to see more than a nationalist motto and more of an explanation. See Talk:Falkland Islands#Argentina's claims. --Pablo D. Flores 11:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Malvinas/Falklands

message: The article talks about the Junta "restoring order", by looking for "terrorists". First, if someone was terrorist, that were the armed forces. Secondly, thousands of people were killed for their political beliefs, not for any bomb... ¿do you think that there were 30,000 terrorists out there?
: I agree with you, talking about "terrorists" is justifying the military intervention, when this intervention was far more than an "against terrorism intervention" ... and "terrorists" were more revolutionaries fighting for their countries than "terrorists" (nobody will call William Wallace a terrorist) --qsebas
::Hopefully this is better now. Check out Proceso de Reorganización Nacional. Dirty War had a current events tag, due to the recent news about the Leyes de Perdón. I removed the tag because it doesn't look OK (it seems as if the Dirty War continued today); the recent news are worth a separate article IMHO. Are there any articles on Menem's indultos (pardons) or the Leyes de Perdón (Ley de Obediencia Debida, Ley de Punto Final)? That would open up a whole field about constitutional matters, legal precedents, other countries that have tried their former rulers, etc. etc. --Pablo D. Flores 16:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tremendous POV on the 70's 

message: I think it would be wise to standarize the use of these words.
The problem rises not in the articles (redirections can be done) but with the Categories, (E.g. :Category:Argentinian Telenovela, :Category:Argentine sport).
I know, we could also use Telenovela of Argentina and Sport from Argentina, but that would go against the standard in use (:Category:Sports by country, :Category:Telenovela).
Personaly, I prefer british use of Argentine, specially when used as a adjective.
For the gentilic I also use Argentine, but Argentinian doesn't sound that bad.
Argentinean (US writting) seams just awful. Please, see this.
What should we do? Live everything to caos, and let it be or set a voting to choose the adjective and gentilic to be used? -Mariano July 8, 2005 07:52 (UTC)
:I go for argentine. Don't know why but argentinean sounds somewhat wrong to me, and argentinian sounds utterly wrong to me. But maybe let it be isn't that bad an option. SpiceMan 8 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)
Personally, I think that Argentine should be use for all things argentine (i.e. Argentine Sport, Argentine Television, &c.), and Argentinian (not Argentinean that sounds terribly awful) for people from Argentina (i.e., Fulano de Tal is an Argentinian writer). Argentine is an adjective (as is Argentina in spanish, that´s why the correct use is la Argentina, literary, the Argentine) and Argentinian is a gentilic adjective, in the standard english use: Chile Chilean, Russia Russian, Romania Romanian, &c.
--Jfa 8 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)
Here in the US Argentinian and Argentinean are used interchangeably, but I have the understanding that in the UK Argentine is the preferred term. I honestly couldn't care less as long as the sentence is clear but I think that unfortunately this is one of the instances where British and American English differ. I vote for Let it be :) --Sebastian Kessel 8 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
Here in Argentina ,when we must talk about us in english we use "argentinian". It sounds better to me but i think we should let the article as it is now and change only future edits. I have never seen "argentinean" before but if the "e" is pronunced as in "get", it is realy horrible. - Argentino 8 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
No, the pronunciation changes are minimal, if any. On the other hand, Argentino, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when I was in high school (in Argentina, of course) I learned Argentine, not anything else. I don't want to take merit of what you say, it just goes to show that there is no consensus formed. Furthermore, after having lived in Argentina until my 24th birthday (I'm 28 now) if there's something I know is that I can barely trust Argentinos to speak proper spanish, much less proper english (Me entendé?). :) :)
--Sebastian Kessel 9 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
:AFAIK "Argentine" is the adjective, and "Argentinian" is the noun. That's what I'm using consistently whenever I write. "Argentine" sounds terrible to me but seems to be common use. "Argentinian" as an adjective doesn't strike me as incorrect, and matches "Chilean, Peruvian, Uruguayan, Brazilian", etc. Just my 2 centavos. --Pablo D. Flores 9 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
:: I agree with Pablo Flores and Argentino. Argentinian sounds better to argentinians but i know that only "sounds better" we cant change the language so we should use Argentine as adjective only
::According to Merriam Webster the three options are right. I'd rather not use Argentinean, but it's just me. Ejrrjs | What? 23:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, much ado about nothing, then. :) --Sebastian Kessel 01:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine, Argentinian and Argentinean