Talk:Argentina/Archive 1

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 BTW most the economy article is outdated to the point of being useless...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)

de la plata / del plata
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? &mdash;Bkell 21:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "Sierra del Plata" might be correct Spanish. See, for example, Mar del Plata.

The word "del" is a conjuntion of two words: "de"(of) and "el"(the) singular article masculine (the femenine is "la"), but "Sierra del Plata" is grammatically correct because it talks about the river called "rio de la Plata" and "rio" is masculine, then:

Sierra del rio de la Plata = Sierra del Plata

Mar del rio de la Plata = Mar del Plata

When someone said "el Plata", is talking about the river and not about the silver.

--200.68.232.41 21:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Jorge Leiva Scheuschner

Nacion Argentina / Republica Argentina
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)

The official name of Argentina is still República Argentina, and it shows in said constitutional article. The mentioned constitutional article says that República Argentina is the official style of the country, and Nación Argentina will be the name of the National Government. Thus, República Argentina is still perfectly valid.


 * Article 35- The adopted denominations succesively adopted since 1810 to the present, are the following: United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata; Argentine Republic, Argentine Confederation, will be from now on the the official names indistinctively for the designation of the Government and the territory, the words "Argentine Nation" being used in the formation and sanction of the laws.

A 1862 law chose the name "República Argentina" from among the mentioned official names in art.35, to be the one to be officially used since. However, the term "Nación Argentina" is still use in that cases mentioned by the constitution: the sanction of laws, the official denominations of the President and the Congress (Presidente de la Nación Argentina and Congreso de la Nación Argentina), and so on.--Jfa 19:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Capital Federal / Distrito Federal
"1 federal district (formerly known as capital federal)". No one calls it "distrito federal", and "capital federal" is used by nearly everyone to call it. Also, it is in fact named capital federal on official documents, never DF.

The right name for Buenos Aires since the 1994 constitution reform, is ciudad autónoma de Buenos Aires (Autonomous city of Buenos Aires). Everybody keeps refering to it as Capital Federal. we never called it as districto federal. The constitution states that the city of Buenos Aires will be declared the federal district,therefore the capital of the country. That's why we refer to it as capital federal.

Buenos Aires Province / Province of Buenos Aires
OK, Ahoerstemeier. I understood your changes, because the page is in english, but be more consistent. You wrote "Mendoza Province", and forgot to put "Entre Ríos Province". Also wrote ", Argentina" behind the name of the province just in two provinces tooltips. And I think that is no necesary to put the City word behind Buenos Aires or the Province word behind Buenos Aires, in the list. Do not you think that?

I have a few questions:

- How is the right form? "Buenos Aires province" or "Province of Buenos Aires"? - Could be the provinces names inside a table, with complementary information like population and provinces's capital?

Thanks a lot, and excuse my horrible english.

The correct form is Province of Buenos Aires. By the way, it makes no difference if it is "Republica Argentina" or, "Nacion Argentina", we (people from Argentina), call it both ways.

This Article is Very ****** Up
Please someone fix it and remove vandalism.

Argentine claims
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)

Hi SpiceMan - many thanks for your corrections & comments, much appreciated.

I will need to write to Whitakers Almanack who still (2004) state the old currency.

I have amended the Head of Government part to make it consistent with other sovereign state pages, whilst incorporating the current specific situation in Argentina. Hope it meets with your (and everyone else's) approval.

regards, --JohnArmagh 08:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)

Link suggestions
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. &mdash; LinkBot 09:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New demographic discovery
recent studies in argentina shows that a 56% of the population has atleast a small part of "amerindian" genetic heritage, does someone know if this news was confirmed?
 * Which studies? Ejrrjs | What? 00:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * this studies:

if is true I don't think they should feel ashamed anyway. greets from Mexico.
 * Why should we? Anyway, I cannot find any paper in the net, just poorly written press reports. Ejrrjs | What? 02:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's why I wanted to know if that news was confirmed, the first time I see it was in the last page of the international section of a local Mexican newspaper called "El Siglo de Torreon".

Of course after 700 years there is one great-great-great grandfather that is half indian. White people are 97% of population. How many in USA have ANY relative that came from Africa in the last 700 years?

Duhalde and the riots
User:200.89.187.62 recently added a few words about "the lower class rioting partially instigated by Duhalde". I invite him/her or anyone else to provide support for this. Everybody in Argentina knows that the PJ encouraged this (as it did the riots and looting in 1989 that finished off President Alfonsín) but it's a serious matter and I don't think it belongs in a Wikipedia article if it's only a rumour. --Pablo D. Flores 15:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Duhalde: "Either the president changes or the president will have to be changed"
 * See La Nación Newspaper archive, Dec. 19th, 2001. Free after registering (in Spanish).
 * Enough?
 * Ejrrjs | What? 21:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. ...and the major of Moreno and some other sycophants started a "march" to Plaza de Mayo.


 * Not enough. Mind this: I want to include this, since I'm no fan of Duhalde of the PJ and it's public knowledge what they did, but it's only a rumour. The article quotes Duhalde saying that the president will have to change or be changed and then suggests a Legislative Assembly could do the job. He doesn't call for pressure on De la Rúa to make him resign without offering alternatives. He could've called for a march himself, or told De la Rúa to resign in dire terms, or whatever, but he at least pretended to be a responsible political leader and didn't encourage any violent action to force the president's resignation. If you have actual proof of a link between the PJ of Buenos Aires and the riots, please state it. The major of Moreno et al could also be mentioned, if needed, maybe in a subsection? A different article? --Pablo D. Flores 11:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed some of the grammar/language/spelling/links relating to that. I don't know much about the situation, but it seems to me that it requires its own page. FrancisTyers 13:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think all of this belongs in here. An overview about the 2001 breakdown... ok. full of details? no. that's for another article. Also I don't see the latest political extravaganza on the main article of other countries, nor the results of the latest elections. Specially not as part of History. I vote for a major revamp of that part of the article. I mean... the whatnots about a major of Moreno!? What about the decada infame which is not even mentioned? -SpiceMan 06:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur *votes for revamp* FrancisTyers 21:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Count me in for revamp, too. The History section should end in 2003, right after the election of current President Néstor Kirchner. The riots should have a separate, well-researched article, maybe as a subsection of an article on the whole 2001 crisis up to De la Rúa's resignation. -- Pablo D. Flores 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cone-shaped??
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)

Edited map
Hello all

The Falkland Islands have been erased from this map, please somebody put the real map. Thank you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Argentina_provinces.png

The map below is more like it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/180px-Ar-map.png

Why revert?
It seems kind of redundant to mention Spanish is the official language twice in the same section, and the bit about it being the most widely spoken language fits more with the former paragraph.

On the Malvinas/Falklands
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. --Pablo D. Flores 11:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Official religion
I was reading the constitution of argentina, and it states that Roman Catholicism is the church practiced by the federal goverment, wouldn't that make it its official religion? Cjrs 79 22:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, and yes it is. The constitution grants freedom on the individual beliefs, but Roman Catholicism is the official thing. SpiceMan 05:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But have in mind that since Carlos Menem the president need not to be Catholic. --Marianocecowski 07:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Constitucion states that catholicism is supported by the federal state, that is, it is economically supported. This is very different to declare it official. The catholic church has a different status from other religions, but it's not the official one.--Jfa 14:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Menem was nominally a Catholic when he was elected for the 1st time, as it was mandatory at that time Art. 76 of the 1853 Constitution. That was changed in the Constitutional Reform crafted to reelect Mr. M., and the it does no longer force the new president to mention God and the Bible in his/her inauguration oath, as former Art. 80 did Ejrrjs | What? 22:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Rumors said that this change in the constitution was made because Menem was resently very ill (with risk of his life), and in case of his dead, as he had no more vicepresident (Duhalde quited to be governor), the following in the sucession line was the president of the senate (Eduardo Menem, his brother), who never passed to Catholicism. --qsebas


 * Do you have a source? Was that a rumor only? (the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). I always thought Carlos Menem converted to Catholicism because he wanted to become president... NB the relevant places in the Argentina articles now say that Catholicism is the state religion (as Mariano pointed out). --Pablo D. Flores 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no source... it's only a rumour that I have heard in the "political environment" i can eaven remember the exact date of his medical intervention (if I can remember, a heart intervention) and part of the rumour was that de following after Eduardo Menem in the succession line (President of "Diputados") was an opposer to Menem (in the PJ party), and that was the reason why Eduardo Menem was so important in the succession line. About Menem beeing catholic, I can't assure that was for a presidential mather, I don't know when he passed to catholics, but I think it was quite early in his career, but I'm sure it was for a political fact, in a strong catholic province you will not climb in politics if you're not catholic.Qsebas 17:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * , the use of the word "sostiene" not only means "support", but it also means "uphold". I think that even though the interpretation might be ambiguous, the meaning is clear. --Sebastian Kessel 15:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In this case, I can assure you that sostiene means support (in $). In Argentina it was always understood like that. --Jfa 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I does not mean support, especially since up until 1994 the constitution required the president to be Roman Catholic. That shows identifying with the religion, not paying for it. Even in the military you "swear upon" the flag. The fact that the government subsidizes the church is a very different and real thing, granted, but it's not a constitutional mandate, especially since there are also subsidies to other religions (i.e.: Moslem Mosque in Palermo). Argentina always had a tradition of being a Catholic country. --Sebastian Kessel 19:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, I took away some of the article (added recently) where it talked about the official religion and if the state "economically" supporting the religion. Can we reach a consensus so we can adjust the article? I left it vague enough to go either way. --Sebastian Kessel 15:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Tremendous POV on the 70's
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)

Menem's economic measures
Why is the article so in favour of widely neoliberal criticized policies? There are hundreds of articles and dozens of books about the damage that neo-liberal economics (bah, neo-classical syntesis, or Milton Friedman's view of the world plus some Samuelson) did to Argentina, far more damage that the much-more visible corruption. So, please, include something about Menem's government irresponsability on the subject. Example: the privatizations, widely known in Argentina as when "we sold our inheritance" (cuando vendimos las joyas de la abuela).
 * feel free to add it yourself. that's the whole point of wikipedia. SpiceMan 04:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Economy of Argentina Is a good place to write about it. -Mariano 09:01, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Fundamentally sound economy?
I've just edited out some inaccurate compliments on Argentina's economy, and I'm trying to phrase it better. The economy section (even now) ends up saying that basically Menem and De la Rúa did everything OK, except for the debt, and that's why the recovery after the crisis has been so fast. This is plainly not the case: in 2002 the local industry was practically destroyed, and it still is, mostly. The things that are doing well in Argentina are the services and the primary sector (basically we're about to get buried in transgenic soy), with some large industrial companies exporting low-level goods. Energy needs will not be met this year (even if Bolivia finally decides to send some natural gas over here, as planned), there's a generation of young people who grew up in the 1990s and will never get a job (because they lack the minimum education or skills), and Argentina effectively lost 12 years of industrial development, so that if you want to manufacture anything, you will surely have to compete with Brazil and/or China (i. e. you already lost). So a critical part of Argentina's economy was fundamentally unsound, and continues to be, though maybe less so. --Pablo D. Flores 11:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I seriously think the Economy section is taking over the hole article, what seams to me to be absolutely wrong. This section should contain some information of the country's economical activities (grain, catle, etc), a comment on the crisis of the beggining of the century, and something about the ver lasting debt. Everithing else shoud be referenced to other articles, most of which already exist: Economy of Argentina, Argentine Currency Board, Argentine economic crisis, December 2001 riots (Argentina). Don't you think?. -Mariano 11:53, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * I agree to some extent. Regrettably, most of recent Argentine history is basically economic history... I've been checking out the other pages and editing here and there. Argentine Currency Board is not appropriately titled; it has a lot of content which should go on Argentine economic crisis. --Pablo D. Flores 20:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, somebody with more time than me, change the part about Menem being "good" (Privatizations? Oh my...) I'm in Israel already 6 years because of the neo-conservative economics of Menem and Cavallo, and now and then I cry for my lost country (lost to the International Monetary Fund fundamentalists, lost to the drug lords and corrupt leaders).  So please, somebody, change that content, because what Menem did killed people, and drove others to all corners of the world. User: Horzer

Capital Change?
I was referring to an almanac tonight and it says the Argentine Legislature approved a bill that would move the capital to the Patagonia region. Does that bear any truth? --Arbiteroftruth 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. During Raúl Alfonsín's term, it was proposed that the Federal Capital be moved to Viedma, but the proposal failed. The idea was not without advantages, but it would have had a ridiculous cost and the logistics alone would have been monumental work. Argentina likes to produce such proposals from time to time (Carlos Menem once proposed an artificial island in front of Buenos Aires, as well as a launch platform for "stratospheric planes"). The idea of moving the capital should be mentioned somewhere. Many believe that Buenos Aires has an exceedingly dominant position in many ways (demographically, economically, culturally) and that moving at least the political/administrative center of the country elsewhere would help correct the imbalance. Recently a number of people in Rosario proposed moving the national Legislature there (I don't know what became of that project, but it was supported by the governor of Santa Fe Province, the major of Rosario, and some local media and business groups). --Pablo D. Flores 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)


 * Actually, Congress aproved the law that created a Federal District around Viedma and Carmen de Patagones, but it was delayed to the construction of the new city. It wasn´t a crazy idea that end in nothing: government bought tracts of land in the area, and the project of the city was complete: the hiperinflation crisis of 1989 stopped everything and the law was finally killed by Carlos Menem. The project (of wich I happens to have printed versions of part of it) calculated a 2000 population of 250.000. The idea of bringing Congress to Rosario is against the constitution: you have to move the three powers together, if Congress goes to Rosario, so have to go the executive and the Supreme Court (y yo no quiero ese puterío en Rosario). Buenos Aires HAS a exceedingly dominant position, but I think that moving the capital nowadays is not an option.--Jfa 30 June 2005 12:42 (UTC)

Included a note on capital change in the information bar. --Arbiteroftruth 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit and then noticed these two last paragraphs. I was fairly sure that the proposal had failed, since nobody never heard of it again. I still think it was a ridiculous idea at the time, probably made up in order to steal funds. Seriously thought-out projects, with plans and all, are not necessarily legitimate. Believe me. I can't say any more without compromising my job, should any of my bosses happen to read this talk page. :)


 * Jfa, is there a specific place in the Constitution that says that the three powers must be moved together? If so, any room for alternate interpretations? Not that I'd love having Congress over here, but anyway, puterío ya tenemos... --Pablo D. Flores 1 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Article 3 says: The authorities that exert the federal Government, reside in a city declared capital of the Republic. That means that all three powers (the authorities) has to be in the Capital, not one in one city and one in another.--Jfa 1 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Southern Border??
I saw a lot of back and forth regarding Argentina's southern border. I agree that The South Pole/Antarctica shouldn't be mentioned but technically, Argentina borders with Chile in the south as well, let us not forger that the 1985 Beagle Treaty gave Chile sovereignity over the three Islands (Picton, Lennox, Navarino) south of Ushuaia, so if we get really anal, Chile lies also to the south, right? What do you all think? --Sebastian Kessel 1 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep it as a claim but someway to let everyone know that it isn't recognised (As we shouldn't delete the claim to the Falkland Islands). I wrote it and dont care if you delete it, if you have a reason.


 * I think it's not necessary to mark a south border as there's no country physically limiting with Argentina as they are in al the other directions. If something is to be stated, then it's water. Or do you say that at the east it limits with the Malvinas?
 * Argentino, don't forget to sign your comments. --Mariano July 4, 2005 08:02 (UTC)
 * The southern limit of Santa Cruz borders with Chile for roughly 200 kms. That's plenty for me to consider Chile being into the south besides west imho. SpiceMan 4 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
 * But you forget that South of Santa Cruz you still have Tierra del Fuego!! It's like saying Uruguay is north of Argentina instead of East, because it's north of Buenos Aires. I don't know, I think it's confusing to say Chile is South of Argentina. -Mariano July 4, 2005 11:13 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is confusing, I was trying to be overly technical on purpose. Argentina borders on the south with the Antarctic Ocean, if we can call it that, or with any other body of water. Not with any country or pole. :) --Sebastian Kessel 5 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
 * Mariano, I said south besides west. So the statement would be like "borders to the west and south with Chile" or something like that. And I didn't say it wasn't confusing, but the article right now mentions the Drake Passage, which could make you think that the Drake Passage is a country, I find that far more confusing (and imho, incorrect. i'd say it coasts the Atlantic Ocean, not border). And no, I wouldn't say Uruguay is to the north as there's the Rio de la Plata in the middle, Santa Cruz borders with Chile with regular land border (and the article on the province states that it borders with chile to the west and south). So I'd say that if we mention an Argentine southern border, that's Chile or the Atlantic Ocean (or more accurately, both). But clearly not the Drake Passage. SpiceMan 6 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention. Sebastiankessel, the Southern Ocean (or Antarctic) starts on the parallel 60, even considering the Mar Argentino, you can see on Image:Mapa_Pol%C3%ADtico_Argentina.png that it doesn't reach the parallel. SpiceMan 6 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
 * Spiceman, I believe the issue of which body of water it is to be rather anecdotal. I side with Mariano here in the fact that Chile is commonly viewed as a westerly neighbor, and I would cite either the Drake Passage or the Atlantic Ocean as the southern border. Since Argentina has no country directly to its south, mentioning a body of water as a border is valid. Now, to the question of which body of water to use, I'd go for the Drake Passage. Since it connects the Atlantic to the Pacific it is probably clearer than just mentioning the Atlantic Ocean, that most people intuitively picture east, rather than south. Ideas? --Sebastian Kessel 6 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
 * I insist, countries border with countries not oceans. Imho if mentioning a southern border that's Chile. Or not mention a southern border at all, if you think that's confusing. To the south of Usuahia there's a coast, not a border. SpiceMan 7 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
 * I'm for the no-southern-comment-at-all. --Mariano July 7, 2005 08:32 (UTC)

(Enough with the colons :) ) This from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: "The country is bounded by Chile to the south and west, Bolivia and Paraguay to the north, and Brazil, Uruguay, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east." I think that settles it, don't you guys think? --Sebastian Kessel 7 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)


 * La República Argentina limita al norte con Bolivia, Paraguay y Brasil, al este con Brasil, Uruguay y el Océano Atlántico, al sur con Chile y el Océano Atlántico y al Oeste con Chile, in ~Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Datos básicos sobre la República Argentina Ejrrjs | What? 7 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
 * Just a side note. To be bound is not the same as to border. Just as limite is not the same as frontera. Maybe the slight difference between the concepts is what is this all about. SpiceMan 8 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Argentine, Argentinian and Argentinean
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)


 * Oh, well, much ado about nothing, then. :) --Sebastian Kessel 01:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual error
Argentina doesn't claims the Malvinas as part of Antarctica, but as part of the South Atlantic Islands. The Argentine Antarctica, the South Atlantic Islands and the Argentine part of Tierra del Fuego form together the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands, but that is another issue.

Also, the reasons given for Argentine claims over the Malvinas (and South Atlantic Islands) and the Argentine Antarctica are quite different: while the first ones are based on territorial and historical reasons (mainly), the second one are based on mere occupation and proximity (that is NOT the same).
 * Well, considering they are NOT down parallel 60, and that they are not under the Antarctic Treaty System, I have to agree. -Mariano 06:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * On a second reading, it doens't say so, but can be misunderstood... -Mariano 06:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Greenfield
Hi.

I live in a town named Greenfield and it is very unlike Argintina.My town is very small and extremely boring.There is a population of about 1500 people.My school is rather small also and it varies in race.This sounds like a very fun place to go by the way you discribe it.You are doing a wonderful job keep up the work! I also really enjoy being a member of Wikipedia! Thanx again.