Argentina B‑class Top‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Culture of Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Demographics of Argentina, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old comments for Demographics of Argentina are archived: Archive 1 (Dec 2005 – Apr 2006): 1 Whites in Argentina - 2 Yiddish - 3 INDEC and World Back on Black roots - 4 The article contradicts itself - 5 Middle Eastern - 6 Afro-Argentineans Archive 2 (Apr 2006 – May 2006): 1 Demographics controversy - 2 Protection - 3 My point of view - 4 To Al-Andalus - 5 Let's give a solution, then

The user Dúnadan has removed my entire paragraph of text and replaced it with his, with no reason whatsoever. If you follow his edits, you can clearly see that he has an agenda, as he has been reverting and removing sections from articles concerning Argentine demographics all across the wiki.

I consider my original text was apropiate for the article, yet the one posted by the Dúnadan is a clear copy-paste of what he typed into Demographics of Argentina. In both articles, Dúnadan has reintroduced the controversial UBA study that says 56% of Argentines have amerindian descent. This study has been proven wrong by many others, such as [1], as well as arguments explaining that the supposed "amerindian" markers analized are also present in Spanish and Galician populations, of which Argentina has plenty of descendants.

As a result, the UBA study was considered too controversial, and a consensus was reached to keep it out of the Demographics of Argentina article. Yet this user has been adding it again, and even worse, HAS REWRITTEN MY COUNTRIBUTION WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER, as he basically posted the same information with a different rewording.

I've made more than 500 contributions to the Wiki, with a dynamic IP, but it's pretty sad to see that so many editors are willing to side against an anonymous editor simply because he's anonymous. I guess I'll have to create a nickname for myself, even though that undermines the purpose of the Wiki itself.

Please take a look on this info I gave you. The genetic study has no bearing whatsoever in the article, unless you also want to include genetic studies on Canada, the USA, Brazil, or Australia, which also show similar levels of admixture. Regards,

--200.117.168.68 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlohcierekim. I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:

The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina.[2], [3]. This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussion amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:

""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote). [4]

A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Wikipedia with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Wikipedia is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition es:Composición étnica de Argentina.

I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.

I will copy this paragraph to Talk:White American and Talk:Demographics of Argentina and will welcome your opinion on the matter. I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.

--the Dúnadan 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I am aware of the Dispute Resolution venue, even though, in my past experience, it has been of very little help. Honestly, I don't think this issue merits Dispute Resolution. When an edit is comprehensive and fully reliable, and the other is POV and not referenced, I think that the latter clearly violates Wikipedia's three core principles.

--the Dúnadan 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've adopted a username and will try to follow your advice. Regards,

--Dharma for one (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlohcierekim i have been looking forward the article white people and this particular user the Dúnadan who has been editing all the articles with the UBA study made surprisingly in all white and demographics articles about Argentina I personally think we should report it as vandalism because he cannot just appear and erase all our contributions just because he wants to put a racist study against Argentina and all ending up in a great discution because that's what he has created..well I wait your opinion

Fercho85 02:32 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply.

Aside of the preposterous accusation of me "vandalizing" articles by writing a paragraph that perfectly complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE, I must call into attention that the information therein presented was conducted by the Genetic Department of the University of Buenos Aires, confirmed by several other studies, and accepted and published by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina. This study shows that there is a significant contribution of Amerindian DNA in the majority of Argentines. The government claims that this study will help fight against discrimination.

What is Fercho saying? That this study, plus the government are "racist" because they want to fight discrimination? That a study is "racist" because it confirms, with several other studies, that there is Amerindian contribution in the Argentine population? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

--the Dúnadan 15:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dunadan I understand what you say but you should have proposed to add this study previously. I have reverted you editions until we get to a final decision with the other users

Fercho85 05:12, 09 Feb 2008

Per WP:BOLD, not to mention WP:CITE and WP:NPOV my edits are fully substantiated. Read WP:Consensus; you might propose changes if you like, but not revert perfectly sourced edits compliant with Wikpedia's policies. --the Dúnadan 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, most of the people is white doens't matter if they are 2% nonwhite. The genetic test in the Demograohics of the US have been removed too, and the results were similar to ours. This is not a genetic topic but the generals demographics of the people

This genetic research had been removed before Who add it again? and why did you delete my pic???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I took it myself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trelew Girl (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 June 2006.

The people maintaining the Demographics of the US article may very well have reached a different consensus. As you can see from the discussion above, there was a long discussion and all parts agreed on what they considered a good version. I myself changed the article a bit to reflect criticism of the genetic markers as a method for determining Amerindian ancestry. The genetic research and other bits of info regarding the presence of aboriginal elements were (in the past) removed many times by vandals, without any explanation, and they were restored, as it should be. We don't delete useful information just like that.

I removed the picture you took. The ones present in the current version show Argentinians of several different ancestries and backgrounds; yours showed a rather homogeneous group of women (I'd guess middle-class porteñas), and not very clearly. Besides, I think the article already has enough pictures. Pictures should only be used sparingly, to illustrate an article. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to the similarity with Spanish and the social influence of both countries, the average Argentine can also understand Italian and Portuguese, if spoken properly."

What? That's like saying "Due to the similarity with English and the social influence of both countries, the average American can also understand Dutch and Flemish, if spoken properly." It sounds very doubtful to me, as they are separate languages, and thus, are not mutually intelligible. (Además, ni el artículo sobre la demografía de Argentina ni el artículo sobre Lenguas de Argentina en español hacen esta affirmación...) If nobody objects (or provides some sort of proof!), I shall remove this claim. Adso de Fimnu 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need some source to prove this... Speaking from personal experience only:

• I can understand written Italian and Portuguese (and French to a smaller extent), at least a 80% and usually more.
• I can usually grasp the topic of a slow conversation or monologue in Italian or Portuguese, and I can understand if spoken to, also slowly.
• I cannot understand common conversational Italian or Portuguese at all if it's not directed at me.

I haven't got any training in Italian or Portuguese. The two first points above are more a product of my being familiar with etymologies. If you want to remove the statement you quoted, I won't object, though I do feel a source should be looked for. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly. I always found I could get around Northern Italy speaking Spanish slowly, as long as people would speak their Italian slowly in exchange. At this point, I've learned some Italian more correctly, but had not when I first traveled there 20 years ago. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Argentina is 97% white is ridiculous. Anybody who claims that has never been in this country, or has been only in places like Belgrano and San Isidro. The UBA-Conicet DNA study made in 2005 showed 56% of Argentinians have some indian ancestry. But when I try to put that in the main article, it is reverted back in only a few hours. It seems some people just can't stand the idea that Argentina has a much larger non white ancestry that is usually claimed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.15.203 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 August 2006.

The last thing you said is undoubtedly true, but the issue of the DNA study, Amerindian ancestry etc. has been discussed ad nauseam before in this page and in Talk:Argentina. Go to the top of this page, open the archives, and read. We won't discuss over already exhausted arguments. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are alot of natives and mestizos there. Alot of immigration from Bolivia and places like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.82.71.137 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006.

Well maybe the ancestry is non-white, genetics or whatever but it is true that 97% of the population is white. If you are in any part of argentina you can see it with your own eyes(maybe in the northern provinces this 97% is not accurate) but i'm not from San isidro i live in Rosario and it is very hard to find black people or mestizos/indigenous caracteistics.201.235.220.131 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I know I shouldn't reply to this... I don't know where in Rosario you live, but even if you never leave the Oroño-Pellegrini radius you can still see plenty of mestizo-looking people begging and scrounging in the garbage. I mean, please. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps 1 in 10 Argentinean is visibly white in the rich areas. The rest is Hispanic/Mestizo. But hey, ethnicity is what people perceive themselves to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.45.215 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe you're right. So which do you think would be the more accurate perecentage of white people?? i read in some websites that the white population in Argentina is 89% or 87%. Shoud we change it to these numbers?? 201.231.46.3 22:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Pablo. You mean to tell me that it is more common to see a Mestizo/Indian then a black person in the US!! You've got to be kidding me. Just because a few areas of the of certain Cities have more Mestizos doesnt mean that Argentina has a large population of them. If that was the case I could go into Belgrano and go "oh look there are a lot of Asian people here, they must be 15 percent also." You've got to be kidding me.(XGustaX 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The CIA factbook reflects PERCEIVED ethnicity, ie what people declare themselves to be. Of course it will be 97% in Argentina. Sadly that's not reflected in ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.45.215 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags ({{fact}}) are used when a citation is required to back up a controversial or dubious assertion. I've corrected a few of those. In one case (2.8% of Argentine home have at least one member of an indigenous community) the source was directly above in a previous citation; we can't have the same cite repeated all over on every sentence.

I also removed the claim about increased African immigration with its fact tag. Increased African immigration into Argentina is not common knowledge; if it all, it has received more media coverage lately, based on dramatic accounts of a few individuals. No statistics were provided by the media or in official organizations, or even speculation, so I took that out. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the Wikipedia article has a paragraph on illegal immigrants and two reliable internet sources to back up the information, Like in the western world (US, Canada, Europe, Australia, Israel, Japan, etc.), immigration is a divisive and critical issue for countries long depended on it for economic growth and to maintain a suitably large population. 63.3.14.1 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References: 34. ^ Patria Grande - Argentine government's immigration policy

35. ^ Making Room Argentina's new immigration plan - Newsweek: International Editions (Sept. 11, 2006 issue)-- MSNBC.com

<<Illegal immigrants... Illegal immigration has been a relatively important population factor in recent Argentine demographics. Most illegal immigrants come from Bolivia and Paraguay, countries which border Argentina to the north. Smaller numbers arrive from Peru, Ecuador, Romania, and the People's Republic of China. The number of stowaways inside incoming ships from West Africa have increased in recent times. The Argentine government estimates 750,000 are undocumented and has launched a program called Patria Grande ("Greater Homeland"),[34] to encourage illegal immigrants to regularize their status; so far some 200,000 applications have been processed under the program. Other unofficial estimates suggest that over one million people reside in Argentina illegally.[35]>>

Pablo flores keeps adding his claim about "substantial number of immigrants from south Asia". Pablo, please cite some sources or else get a life instead of posting such unsubstantiated claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.168.33 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You're mistaken. I do not "keep adding" anything; what I did was revert your unexplained deletion of information that was maybe doubtful, but was marked as such with a "citation needed" tag. Repeated unexplained deletions without justification amount to vandalism. Your claim that South Asians are a negligible community in Argentina is neither backed up by sources nor marked as such; you just wrote what you believe is right and commanded that it mustn't be changed. In the absence of good sources indicating the size of the South Asian community, I'd suggest we delete any mention of it altogether.

Please review Wikipedia's policies before editing, and before insulting other editors. And sign your posts (use four tildes: ~~~~). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, let's remove the mention of the south-asian community! BTW, the burden-of-proof is on the person making the aforementioned claim, not the person objecting to it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.168.33 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

All I know is the south Asian population is generally small (how about a few thousand of them from India or Pakistan? )to get picked up in the Argentine official census, that's where to find out the latest statistical data to use to edit the article. Don't restore the entry without the criteria and note all unsourced edits will be taken down. You want to head over to the Argentine census web link and look up the country's racial makeup. Argentina official census web page (solo en espanol/only in Spanish 63.3.14.1 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone in the know clarify what's being spoken at the Brazilian border? Is it a real language--a creole or lingua franca derived from Spanish and Portuguese? Or is it code-switching between the two, like Spanglish? 205.212.74.46 12:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check portuñol. --Mariano(t/c) 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it. Didn't know there was a link; I added it to the article. I guess since it's a general term for different behaviors, the present wording is informative enough for this article, especially with the link added for those who want to know more.205.212.74.46 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be of any help in these disputes? I am familiar with Argentina (I lived there for 12 years) and I am also an experienced Wikipedian and an administrator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you, basically, this user keeps implying that he is right about the whole "white" vs. "European" deal. Dark tea added that White is a not an actual "race" and he provided his source. Mariokempes appears to be very annoyed at the whole fact of "White" vs "European". I believe Dark Tea was right in saying European, because that is far more correct. (DoubleNine 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

jossi: please have a read through the "demographics" related comments in talk:Argentina and my reverted edits in the article. Essentially, the number of "white" and/or Europeans in Argentina is not all that clear, and that situation must be reflected in the article. This user refuses to acknowledge this and dismisses my citations as unimportant (and those of others- there is a long history here, I have recently learned by reviewing the history tab). I am not discounting the 97% claim (never have) although I have my personal doubts- but I maintain all sides should be presented. This user keeps trivializing my points without actual consideration or meaningful discussion. The percentage of Europeans may be as low as 89% based on other sources. What is wrong with saying 89-97% and cite the two or three sources that support this variation? Quite frankly, I'd prefer to cut this percentage stuff and simply state that Argentina is overwhelmingly European and leave it at that. I'd like to hear your side and not from the usual (or new) puppets. Thanks Mariokempes 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been protected because of the continuous addition and removal of the link to White Latin American. Protection does not imply endorsement of the current version. The parties involved should discuss the matter in this talk page. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to ongoing and reoccurring vandalism from anon IPs I have semi protected this article. Jeepday (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Economic status" be included in an article of Demographics? Moreover, is "considering oneself to be middle class" rigorous and encyclopedic, even if it can be cited? Shouldn't we rather use actual figures on poverty, household income and the like, instead of "personal considerations"? --the Dúnadan 23:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was a major removal of material, without a summary. I have no idea of the validity of this genetically related information, so I am not restoring, but I am sure that the matter should be discussed, rather than changing the article by an edit without even a summary. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who made this edit has less than 20 total edits; his only other edit in the last two months was a removal of similar material from the Argentina article. None of his edits have summaries. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of referenced material is nothing but vandalism. Section has been restored. --the Dúnadan 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this comment on an edit summary: "The study is listed on the "Genetic Study", why post it twice, I do believe that you have something against Argentines, since you are posting this in every Argentine page." Even though this comment was not addressed to me, but to another user, I find it very inappropriate. Why would a "Genetic Study" be something against Argentines? Why would Amerindian Admixture be against Argentines? Is being "Amerindian" inferior to being "European"? --the Dúnadan 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was me who put that comment, I have this question to you, did you even see my edit? That user who that comment was posting on the European sections of this article this statement: "The "Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas of University of Buenos Aires concluded in 2005 a research directed by the Argentine geneticist Daniel Corach (realized on 320 individuals of 9 provinces) from genetical scoreboards established that 56% of the Argentine population has at least one amerindian ancestor". Not once, but two times. The study is mention in the article on its own personal section called "Genetic Studies". That user also posted this in Argentine American. Seeing that user's contribution, I came up with a theory why was he/she was posting this everywhere, but you didn't like my theory in Talk:Argentina. Why mention this study on other sections of the article when it has it own personal section. What that user did was probably vandalism. And it was also redundancy. Lehoiberri (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my response at Talk:Argentina. I agree, it might have been redundancy. But that doesn't justify the personal attack. Also, I recommend that you read what vandalism really is. --the Dúnadan 07:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a dispute here. The protection is set to expire within 3 days, so hopefully everything can be worked out. What's the problem, anyway? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many people wish to hide facts from others. My edits had a source from the University of Beunos Aires that as many as 56% of all Argentines may have Amerindian ancestry. And I simply put it in an area pertaining to demographic information, along with European peoples described as ancestors to some Argentines. Many do not wish to see reality, I can't see why this is so unwanted...? Cali567 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume good faith on their part. It's likely more complex than that, anyway :-) What are others' take on things? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a problem, as usual with the genetical study section. This study though very controversial, has created since a long time several edit wars not only on this article also in the argentina's. To prevent this kind of edit wars on 25 february 2008 I added a full section of every single genetic study of the argentine genome. Nonetheless, several users still insist to add this controversial issue to all the articles in reference to argentine people (ie, Argentine American). As I said this issue prevails from a long time and for what now concerns it is still without a solution. --Fercho85 (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very honorable, yet not enough. This Amerindian descendency situation has been ignored in EVERY article having to do with Argentine people. Amerindian extraction is no less important or useful in study as European extraction, yet it is always left out. This is not about redundancy as you wish to think, this is about common acknowledgment of Amerindian presence in Argentina. European-like elements are stated to flourish in Argentina... And yet Amerindian elements can be seen in many parts of the culture (not to mention People). Have you ever seen a documentary on Argentina (If you haven't been there) or ventured out of your neck of the woods (If you have)? The Amerindian presence is seen in many Argentines and it has yet to be ackknowledged in these articles. As a Latin American country, with European and Amerindian influences...no less should be expected. Cali567 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text seems to be cited by this source. I'm not a Spanish speaker, so I can't judge the reliability of it, but it seems to be the central part of thi dispute. Is the problem the source? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly know what you mean Cali567, but you have to understand that until now this is the only consensus that was made and worked out very eficiently reducting the vandalism and edit wars. Besise the amerindian influence that you claim is already on two sections on the article (genetical studies and indigenous people). Please if you are a spanish speaker take a look at composicion etnica de Argentina, where the article refers to the argentine ethnography in a very proper way:[5]

"The current Argentine population, is the result of the descents of different waves of immigrants, principally from Europe and also of the miscegenation of these with a mestizo and indigenous minority original from the colonial period. As Australia, Canada or The United States, Argentina is considered to be a country of immigration, whose society has been influenced mostly by an unmigratory massive phenomenon, which took place from middle of the 19th century..."

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the current protected version of the article is good enough. On the "Origins" section, the "Indigneous Peoples" subsection contains a very small paragraph, that reads: "According to the provisional data of INDEC's Complementary Survey of Indigenous Peoples (ECPI) 2004 - 2005[6], only 402,921 indigenous persons (about 1% of the total population) reside in Argentina. An additional 4.5% are labelled as Mestizo[7], and up to 56% of all Argentines have some Amerindian ancestry.". Compared to the subsection dedicated to Europeans, I believe no one can argue that Amerindians are given a lot more space than needed (it can be argued otherwise, actually). So, as it stands, that brief sentence is perfectly fine. More information on genetic studies is found at the end of the article, which explains the genetic admixture of Argentines.

As far as I can tell, the contention is the last addendum to the above sentence "and up to 56% of all Argentines have some Amerindian ancestry". I don't find anything wrong with that particular addendum; it is referenced (by a document, in Spanish, of the University of Buenos Aires, endorsed by the Minsitry of Education, Science and Technology in Argentina).

--the Dúnadan 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at both the Clarin article [6] and the summary of a genetic study [7] on which the Clarin article is based. Although the newspaper article cites 56% of some form or trace of Amerindian lineage in the DNA, I can't find this % in the scientific summary. Clarin says: La combinación de ambos datos dio que hubo cruzamiento y que en el 56% de los casos había un legado indígena en algún lugar del ADN. De este segmento de la población, sólo el 10% era amerindio puro, sin ningún componente europeo. but the scientific summary only says: De esta manera, considerando los resultados en su conjunto se ha podido comprobar que en la muestra considerada más del cincuenta por ciento de las muestras exhiben haplogrupos mitocondriales característicos de las poblaciones originarias, 52% en la muestra de la región Centro, 56% en la muestra del Sur-SurOeste y 66% en la región Nor-NoeEste. Por otro lado, el 20% exhibe la variante “T” característica de las poblaciones originarias en el locus DYS199. Maybe the 56% is present in the original study we don't have access to. The sumary only says más del cincuenta por ciento (more than fifty percent). It would be interesting to have the actual scientific source. (Can I just make clear I had nothing to do with the revert war and Cali567's efforts to add the data in the article. The problem was only brought to my attention after it was posted on Wikipedia's ref-desk [8]. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that some feel it is their duty to keep the "Whiteness" of Argentines intact throughout every Argentine related article... Leaving out the fact that many are part Amerindian... Yes, a study at the University of Buenos Aires has confirmed that 56% of every single Argentine has Amerindian admixture in their DNA. It is interesting that the European aspects of Argentina are dreadfully over exhausted, while it's Amerindian and Mestizo elements, People (Whether Castizo, Mestizo, or Indian), Culture, etc. are swept under the rug, and kept in a state of silence. However, in the real world, and in the REAL Argentina, they are very visible. Most notably the People of Argentina show it in their faces. This country of Latin America is not very different from all other regions in Latin America, although it tries very hard to distance itself... Facts are Facts, And the fact that some do not wish to let the truth be told says much about their character. Argentina's Mestizo Population is quite large, many "Whites" have Indian blood, and the real Argentina is far from a 'European country in Latin America'. Cali567 (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm

It's been a while, but again, I would ask that you strike out the personal attacks. They are not necessary and against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, upon the urging of one member, I need to take up an issue here in the talk page. It seems that Photos of Europeans are numerous in Demographics of Argentina, yet Amerindians played a very big part in it's history. I believe we should equally represent Argentina's main ethnic groups, which would be Whites, Mestizos, and Amerindians. Tell, me, what say you? (Of course, I know what you think User:Fercho85! Cali567 (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is a section about Indigenous peoples, why not include a picture as well? --the Dúnadan 22:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a picture in the indigenous people section should be included. CenterofGravity (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of the photos in this article: Two photos depicting young children (Who are also more than likely, 'White') is too much. This section is headed "Origins and ethnicity" and it is in an area where ALL ethnic groups are discussed... Tell me then, why should there be 3 photos of Europeans and/or their descendants?I think there should be photos of Whites, Amerinds, Mestizos, Jewish people and/or Asians and the other groups, etc. It shouldn't matter that there is "already a photo of Amerindians that you added". All groups should be present in that section, not just Whites. That is why I put the photo of the Cacique and took out the teenagers at the party (which in itself looks better). Cali567 (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems just fine to have one image but two? I find rather ironic to include two images of amerindian people in a 90% European descent country.

Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is more ironic is that those Amerindians are the ancestors of million in the "White" group.

Cali567 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are mixing Genotype with Phenotype, at a genetical level the average structure of the Argentine population contains 79.9% of European contribution, and 15.8% of Amerindian contribution[9][10] in which this genetic marker is present in 56% of the Argentine population meaning that the amerindian contribution could rank in that proportion from 0,01% up to 15,8%, still though the main genetical contribution is european.

Now at a Phenotypical level, Argentina stands at 90% white or belonging to a European ethnic group[11]. It's also important to note that no national government in the world uses DNA testing from small samples to determine ethnicities of it's people in fact the US census bureau prohibits scientific studies such as DNA testing for allocating dataDemographics of the USA

--Fercho85 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm afraid you aren't seeing it very clearly. There is no reason to mix up genotype and phenotype. If you have Amerindian ancestry - YOU HAVE Amerindian ancestry. The Argentine could be swarthy (like many of Italian descent) or lily white - Makes no difference to me. It also seems, now that your actually speaking in Talk pages, that you have a dislike for photos of Amerindians. Why when they could be your forefathers?

Also, just because people say they are something, doesn't mean they are. Genetic testing, or small samples, is good enough for the courts, why not you, I ask.

BTW, seems theres an Anonymous user running about - tell him to sign in if you speak to him. Cali567 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina has a large population European descended people. Among this group of White people, which some claim is about 89.7-97% of the pop., are those who have some Amerindian ancestry.

This isn't clearly stated in any of the Argentine related articles,.. quite the contrary: It is never mentioned. It is taken out by many pro-European Latin Americans here on Wikipedia. There are many good sources for Amerindian admixture among Whites in Argentina, most being from Argentina itself (University of Buenos Aires).

In these sources it is stated that about 56% of ALL Argentines (Whether they beleive they are White or not) have some Amerindian ancestors. This makes a large portion of those who are thought of as "purely European" descendants of Amerindian tribes. For clarity, it should be noted for the researcher that many of these White Argentines are not fully White (That they may feel purely European is their choice). At Wikipedia we should be careful to list facts. Some say it takes away from the European section and feels "out of place". I say thats ridiculous, and it should be mentioned. Misleading information doesn't help anyone.

It is already stated in another article that some in the large White population of Mexico have Amerindian ancestry. Same goes for other countries in Latin America. Why not Argentina? Is this a case of European bias? The desire of many to be thought of as a "European" country in Latin America?

We do know this: There is no description of White in the Argentine census, but simply self-ascription (i.e. they asked the population, what do you consider yourself to be? Not surprisingly, the great majority of Argentines say "White". (A similar survey reported that the great majority of Chileans also claim to be White or Europeans, yet Mestizos number in the millions and are even counted with Whites in their census... where are those who claim Amerindian extraction?)

Please, what do you think about its inclusion in the article in the European/White section (where it should be).

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/genetics_the_mythbuster_the_ca.php http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html - In Spanish. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18401351 - This says they are predominantly White with 20% Amerindian admixture. http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/17177183/Argentine_population_genetic_structure_large_variance_in_Amerindian_contribution

Cali567 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your talk page, I don't think your first attack on the other editors is productive. I hope you would consider striking it out. Instead, focus on your sources and what you actually want to say. In terms of your sources, I'm not sure about using a blog like ScienceBlogs and the rest seem like individual genetic studies. Is most of the article based on similar or other types of studies? Is that the issue? However, I'm not sure what use do you have in mind on this article. So far it looks like just a small mention at Demographics_of_Argentina#Indigenous_peoples. If you want to this information on other articles, I would ask that you either mention it on their talk pages or just mention that it was discussed for this article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not recient it was lenghtly discussed, here and at Argentina's talk page. On June 2008 to prevent this kind of issues I created the Genetic Studies section (in which all the genetic studies are clearly cited), nonetheless only Cali567 kept citing this mentioned study all over the article.

This genetic study is now cited three times whereas it only should be stated at the indigenous and genetical study section. Finally, on a previous consensus it was decided that only one picture of amerindian people could be added even though this user reciently added two images thus removed sourced statements.

Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. It doesn't matter if it was discussed months ago (and six months is a LOOOONG time here). While you created the section, let's see what Cali567 has in mind, and try to form some agreement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine that you added a "GeneticStudies Section", but the main problem we are having here is that many would like to add this information in an area that it fits into and not just kick it to the corner of these articles. If this country, Argentina, is always said to be mainly of European heritage and most everyone describes themselves as White, what of the 56% who also have Amerindian ancestors? It seems it would be OK to add that many in the White pop. have Amerindian blood. This is the largest group, therefore very important. If the article only states 85-97% of the country is White, would good is that? What about researchers wanting a fast glance about their origins. It certainly isn't 100% European. Cali567 (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cali567,
There's a problem here and is about POV.

1)Cali, you state that some users want to kick this genetic information into the corner of these articles, but in the other hand, you want to post it in the front like a welcome carpet.
I think we all agree that these scientific studies are all reliable sources. But who are you to determine the importance of those studies and what is more, where to place them?
The point is that there's no definition on who's white and who's not, so there's no reason to add a link to these genetic studies every time an article mentions that most argentines are white or of european descent.

2)You have to take into account that the fact that half the argentines have been proved to have at least 1 mestizo forefather is not strong enough as to deny that Argentina is a country of mostly European heritage. Do you understad this?

3)You also compare Argentina with Mexico, but these two countries have a really different origin. Argentina is a country of immigrants, Mexico is not. While the majority of mexicans descend from the mixture of spaniards and amerindians that took place many centuries ago, argentines descend mostly from the immigrants that came 150 years ago. It is true that there was a small population of mestizo locals before that, and that is the reason why half the argentines have at least one mestizo forefather, but that's all of it. You see? For example, Buenos Aires(where most immigrants settled) had 500.000 locals before the immigrants came, and we received more than 6 millions of white immigrants.
I think there's a clear difference there. Not all Latin American countries share the same story and ancestry.

4) You seem to be trying to state that Argentina is a mestizo country, just because half of us have at least one mestizo forefather.
That is your personal point of view, and not the truth. Genetic studies proved that half of us have a slight ammount of amerindian admixture, nothing more, it is you who has come to the conclussion that we are all mestizos. Having one mestizo forefather does not make you mestizo.

5) The evidence supporting that we are mostly european is too large to ignore. What do you want me to tell you? Genetic studies have proved that our average population is 80% european, not 50% nor 60%.... 80%! That means we only have 20% of amerindian admixture, and only present on half our population. Do you realize how small the amerindian contribution is? It's like half the population having one or two mestizo great-grandparents and 6 or 7 european great-grand parents, and the other half having all 8 great-grandparents of european origin.
Do you really think we are a mestizo country? I think Argentina is rather a European Immigrants country with, at most, an amerindian touch.

I'm not pro-european, but I'm not pro-amerindian either.
I don't think being a mestizo is bad, but neither is being white Cali.
I don't think your intentions are bad, I know you're looking for the truth, but I think you are looking the wrong way.

Regards,

--Grimshep (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]