Talk:Argentina/Demographicdisc/Archive 1

Removed from GA list

I personally removed this article from the GA list. If anyone object this, please write down your reasons or opinions; I will put this article on assessment (i.e. GAR) with reasons so that it can reach a good consensus. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

when you remove GAss you should give at least 1 sstrong reason why you did so! Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was accurately removed from the GA list, as it now fails the GA critera:

The entire article's main problem is verifiability and original research, there are sections that go by without one footnote; The article is also very poorly written, the history section is completly unbalanced with half of it focusing on the last 15 years and sections, such as Religion and Government, are not written in prose and they both read like a list of facts; The music section does not need every single Argentinian band that has an article in the english Wiki mentioned, i mean honestly El Otro Yo? Miranda!?

hey!! hong long have you been outside Argentina?? Miranda and el otro yo are huge!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.64.86 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Many manual of style flaws, only full dates should be wikilinked, only one time in the same paragraph words should be wikilinked (in the Sector section, words such as "pig", "milk", "telephone", etc), many unnecessary external links in the main article that should be formatted into footnotes, etc, The trivia section could be easily merged into the article; The images could be more appropriate (an image of the country's official sport pato would be great, maybe something related to tango next to the music section?); Also, before renominating, the article needs to be stable, so this whole developed or not developed war should be settled;

What is a good article? has the complete Good Article criteria. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (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: [3]

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?

Genetics

This Information about genetic studies proves to be short lived as no one else has reported your findings i am reverting the page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XXGustaXX (talk • contribs) 20 sep 2005.

Clarin has posted the findings. Please don't base yourself in just the "BA Herald", it's not even close to the best paper in Argentina. If you have proof, show it, otherwise is Original Research and will be reverted as vandalism. PS: Please sign your posts with 3 or 4 tildes (Chaosdruid (talk) or Chaosdruid (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)) so we all know who made the comments --Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC) It was also published by «Página 12» here. Moreover, the research team was led by Daniel Corach, one of the most respected geneticists of Argentina (just google for his name), Director of the Genetic Fingerprints Service, School of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Cinabrium 01:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW here there is the abstract of a previous ('99) paper by Corach: The population of Argentina is mostly composed of people of European ancestry. Aboriginal communities are at present very reduced in number and restricted to small geographically isolated patches. I couldn't find any other reference to his latest results besides Clarin group's newspapers. Ejrrjs | What? 13:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny... But I would tend to trust the later study and also Clarin, who may be biased sometimes but it is a qualified source... Studies change, findings change, who knows. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we are mixing 2 different things. The fact that "56% possess at least some Amerindian ancestry" doesn't mean much by it self. It doesn't mean that 44% are "pure" European, but not that the other 56% are "pure" aboriginals. If of your 16 grand-grand-grand parents one was an aboriginal and the rest pure Europeans, you will (almost) definitely look pure European. If instead of 4 generations we look further behind, this grows exponentially. Can you call "aboriginal" to someone who had a single aboriginal ancestor 6 generations back?? I don't think so. Then, it is true that in Argentina, and specially in Buenos Aires, there is a majority of European "looking" people, 44% of which are pure European. Question is: how to write this in an Encyclopedic way? Mariano(t/c) 08:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to change the order of the paragraphs, and separate the Spanish conquistadores from the mostly Spanish/Italian immigrants of the late 1800s and later. See if this works:

Unlike most of its neighbouring countries, Argentina's population descends overwhelmingly from Europeans. The basic demographic stock (88% of the population) is made up of descendants of the colonial Spanish settlers, augmented by descendants of later Italian and Spanish immigrants. However, according to genetic research, around 56% of Argentinians possess at least some Amerindian ancestry, due to mestizaje (mixing of Spanish settlers and Amerindian natives) during the colonial period. [3]

The (purer?) indigenous population, poorly estimated between 500,000 and 2,000,000, is concentrated in the provinces of the north, northwest, and south. As of 2001, 2.8% of Argentine households host a person that claim to belong to, or to descend from, the indigenous peoples.

Waves of immigrants from other European countries arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...

... And so on. We simply delete the separate section for indigenous peoples. I think this does justice to the original inhabitants, we keep a chronological sequence, and we leave the details of immigration for the last part. Do we have to mention how people look like? --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could be, en either case, the Genetic topic doesn't belong here but to Demographics of Argentina. Mariano(t/c) 11:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it does belong, though maybe we could summarize it more (just mentioning the 56% as an aside). I'm all for reducing sections already covered in main articles. Like this:

Unlike most of its neighbouring countries, Argentina's population descends overwhelmingly from Europeans. The basic demographic stock (88% of the population) is made up of descendants of the colonial Spanish settlers, augmented by descendants of later Italian and Spanish immigrants. Around 56% of Argentinians possess at least some Amerindian ancestry, due to mixing during the colonial period.

But that's just my opinion... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the last one, it summarizes and I think more accurately reflects the truth. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[Back from indentation] Just a few remarks:

The mixing of genetical stocks ("mestizaje") did not happen exlusively during colonial times, but also (and prominently) during the heavy foreign immigration waves of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If you take the immigration stats, you will see that male immigrants grossly exceeded female ones. In the northeast of the country is quite common to see people with blond hair and blue/gray eyes, whose faces clearly recall their Guarani ancestors. Corach's 2004 study shows that aboriginal ancestry is more predominant in mitocondrial ADN traces, i.e., in inheritance from maternal lines. Two other factors contribute to genetic mixing: internal migrations from rural areas to the cities during 20th century, since many of the migrants came from areas where indigenous population was above the general average, and migrations from neighboring countries witn significant indigenous populations, as Bolivia and Paraguay. Please note that we are talking about genetic stock here. Therefore, if just one of your 32 5th generation ancestors (let's say, your grandgrandgrandgrandmother) belonged to an aboriginal people, the trace is still present... and coincides quite well with the current estimates of an indigenous population of about 3% :) Both Corach's studies are not contradictory. The fact that 44% of the population has no indigenous ancestry at all shows an overwhelming presence of the "foreign" element, consistent with the relatively low numbers of indigenous peoples. Take into account that the number of individuals in the sample showing genetic traces of indigenous ancestry is around 5.6%, and that figure means that the individual got that genetic stock both from his/her mother's maternal line and his/her father's paternal line (but still half of his/her ancestors could be non-indigenous).

Regards from the South in a blossoming Spring, Cinabrium 16:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you integrate that into Demographics of Argentina? And a summarized version here too. I think the article as it stands now conveys the message correctly in general, except for the "colonial period" part which I've just deleted.

A blossoming spring indeed. If only it could stay sunny for a whole day... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No wonder Argentina is so much more successful and modern than other Latin American countries, the population is white/European and not extremely poor like the Indian countries like Ecudor, etc. Argentina, Uruguay, South Brazil all have very high white populations which is why they are successful unlike the other nations. by anon user 68.47.234.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). (Mariano(t/c) 07:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

== THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS WRONG == It is a gross overstatement to say that 56% of Argentines (NOT ARGENTINIANS) are of Amerindian Descent. What genetic research are they referring to?

"Around 56% of Argentinians, however, possess at least some indigenous Amerindian ancestry (as discovered by genetic research). Those who claimed their ancestry as Spanish — or Spanish and another ancestry, such as Spanish-Italian — were most likely to have some remnant Amerindian ancestry due to long term colonialization; a legacy of the almost complete absorption of Argentina's colonial mestizo majority by the post-colonial mass migratory influx of Europeans."

Read the article's sources, please. And "Argentinians" is a valid demonym. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

== THE CIA WORLD FACT BOOK (http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html) STATES:

Ethnic groups: white (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%, mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups 3% ==

Please go into Demographics of Argentina. This link [4] will help you out. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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?

One half-Amerindian 'great-great-great grandfather' over 700 years (or the less than 500 that Europeans have been in the Rio de la Plata area) would not be statistically significant in the genetic testing, I think the threshold is around 2% of one's ancestry. So the figure may actually be higher. This is a matter of interest precisely because some people seem to be so offended by the thought that not all Argentines are pure-bred Europeans. Personally I'd be only too happy to find that my criollo ancestors came from a variety of backgrounds and can give me an interesting range of stories and histories to claim as my own. Argentina is a richly-textured country, please stop removing what is only one, albeit interesting, part of that story. Mtiedemann 09:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Population

Les felicito por el muy preciso artículo que están editando relacionado a mi país. Pero veo algunas discusiones respecto a la composición "racial" argentina.Como antropólogo que soy les puedo decir que no existen "razas humanas",sino variedades de la sola especie (Homo sapiens sapiens), unas de piel más pigmentada otras de piel menos pigmentada,unas de párpados más rasgados otras de párpados menos rasgados,etc.Tales variedades (derivadas de adaptaciones a condiciones ambientales allí donde surgieron) son llamadas demes. Por lo demás...todo ser humano es mestizo. Me pongo como ejemplo:por mi formación cultural,como muchísimos argentinos,soy predominantemente "europeo" (la música que más me agrada es la de J.S.Bach y la de Mahler),algunos de las obras literarias que prefiero son:la Illiada,La Orestiada,Hamlet,El Quijote,La Divina Comedia... En lo fisotípico,como la mayoría de los argentinos,tengo aspecto nétamente "europeo",aunque es probable que un examen de ADN revele que tengo (como muchos argentinos) algun/os ancestr/os "indio/s" y ¿quién sabe?...hasta melanoafricano/s,...aunque mis hermanos sean rubios y de ojos azules,y yo tenga pelos rubios en la barba y el bigote y la piel tan clara que debo cuidarme bastante del sol. Quíen sabe,es probable que un examen de ADN en gran parte de la actual población europea de Europa(valga el pleonasmo) indique ancestros mongoles,etc...,en tal sentido,los argentinos somos muy europeos y...sin que haya contradicción ,bastante mestizos. Según un estudio realizado por la Universidad Buenos Aires,en la actualidad el 56% de la población residente en Argentina tiene por lo menos a un ancestro "indio",tal estudio es el de la población residente ,lo que incluye a más de cuatro millones de bolivianos y paraguayos,tal estudio excluye a ¿2 millones? de argentinos y argentinas que están fuera del país. Les saluda un Argentino.

If you want to write in Spanish, you may log in to the Argentina article in spanish. It would be good if the only language used on the English version be English.

In the name of our comunity: If you want to critizise peple who help with good faith, i reccomend you not to put your nose in other people's matters. You seem to be sweddish? Aint you? WHAT DO YOU CARE ABOUT THIS ARTICLE?? the non-argentines that have contributed many times in this article are less than the fingers of one hand (if you understand that) so if YOU cant take the time to use a translator, like this, you shouldnt come here to attack us. This represents a typical argentine answer you would recive. Kindly, Argentino (Talk cont.) 15:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

PLEASE NOTE: Discussion about the content that will be placed in the "Demographics" section of the article "Argentina" may be discussed here. Any other discussions involving demographics, that will not necessarily become a part of the content in this article, should be taken to Talk:Demographics of Argentina. It's amazing how this article has finally managed to totally ommit any reference to the Amerindian and mestizo component of Argentina. Bit by bit it got to this stage. Having been to the country (not only Buenos Aires, but also to provinces in the northwest) it amazes to see the constant denial of Argentinas considerable mestizo and small amerindian population. Obviously neiher mestizos nor amerindians conform a majority on their own, not even collectively, but they are substancial in numbers, and this is not taking into account that genetic research that has indeed confirmed that although not phenotypically mestizo, the majority of the population does also have some Amerindian ancestry. Even this reserach was ommited, and the source also deleted. I guess the University of Buenos Aires' genetic studies of the population, and those of other bodies conducted under the auspices of Argentine government agencies, hold lesser weight than the opinions of individual usuers here (and the estimates found on the CIA's World Book that they then use, and insist only be used).

I suggest we look at the way the demographics section of the Argentina article has evolved in the Spanish wikipedia, and translate that into this wikipedia. Out of respect, some mention must be made of the original inhabitants of Argentina, even in the case were they to number only 2 or 3 people, let alone when they represent no less than 2% and as much as 5%. This is obviously more than the Asian-Argentines who HAVE been mentioned. This moreso with the mestizo population of Argentina which is far larger than the Amerindian one. Al-Andalus 11:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a couple of us might have been looking elsewhere at the time. I don't remember that part being deleted; in fact I remember it being restored several times. No need to get so hot though; I'll bring it back from Demographics of Argentina. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The demographics section of the article is getting kinda long. I agree to keep a couple of references on the genetic researches, but the section should only have the most important information on the subject. The article is already pretty long, so when adding information it would be best to do so at the corresponding sub-article. Anoeny carring to compact this section a bit, an move the full length paragraphs to Demographics of Argentina when needed? Yes, I know, be bold, but I'm affraid I'm currently italics... Mariano(t/c) 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the detailed details of the different European colonies throughout the country could go on the main article Demographics of Argentina. It's interesting, but not all that relevant, at least not in that much detail, to the Argentina article itself. I'm reffering to this part: "The Patagonian Chubut Valley has a significant Welsh-descended population and retains many aspects of Welsh culture. German colonies settled in the provinces of Entre Ríos, Misiones, Formosa, Córdoba Province and the Patagonian region, as well as in Buenos Aires itself. from The French settled mostly in Buenos Aires city or around Buenos Aires province. Those from Scandinavia (especially Sweden), the United Kingdom and Ireland setteled mostly in Buenos Aires and Patagonia, where there are also those from Eastern European nations such as Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the Balkans (especially Croatians and Serbians)." We can keep the last sentence of that paragraph ("The overwhelming majority of Argentina's Jewish community, numbering about 395,379 [3], also derives from immigrants of Northern and Eastern European origin — Ashkenazi Jews. It is the largest Jewish community in Latin America and fifth largest in the world.") by joining it to the next paragraph and just reword and trim it into context. Al-Andalus 13:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the current text? IMO we'd leave it and add more information in the main article, as stated in Wikipedia's official policies. —NihilAliudScitNecessitasQuamVincere 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mariano. Reducing the paragraph is good. -- Argentino 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Genetic thingy, and the recent immigration form neighbouring countries, tight and compact. It looks fine now. Mariano(t/c) 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone has reverted evrything again. All references to Argentina's current indigenous population (data provided thanks to the INDEC) was again entirely deleted. I plead to those who keep removing any content regarding the indigenous people of Argentina to refrain from deleting all that information. It is of extreme importance to the article. The extremly detailed references of all the small and moderate European colonies around the country (detailing every nationality and every town they live in) is on the other hand, a bit lengthy and irrelevant. The most significant nationalities other than Spaniards and Italians have been made a quick mention, and it is highly unecessary to detail where every Swede, Romanian, Serbian, or Croat around the country lives. Al-Andalus 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I didn't remove the genetic research, but I think it's not so important as to have an entiry paragraph about the subject. I liked my vesion that said pretty much the same in only a few words: "The basic demographic stock (97% of the population) [4] is made up of descendants of Spanish, Italian, German and other European settlers, though recent genetic researches suggest that many of them have at least one Amerindian or black ancestor."

Regardin the immigratoin from Europe yes, Italian and Spanish are the main, and should be treated acordingly, but a quick reference of people from some countries and were they went would hurt. Mariano(t/c) 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I still believe it highly irrelevant to detail where every Sven, Boris, Goran, or Olga lives throughout Argentina. That kind of detail does indeed belong in the main Demographics of Argentina article. Europeans other than Spaniards and Italians are already mentioned in the third paragraph; let's leave it at that, if the length of the section is truly a concern of yours. The population of indigenous Argentines, however, belongs in both articles. And perhaps the genetic research could be trimmed down. I'm all for putting "The basic demographic stock of Argentina is made up of descendants of Spanish, Italian, and other various European immigrants and settlers, however, recent genetic researches suggest that some 56% of them also have at least some Amerindian ancestry." I would refrain from including the Black ancestry remark, since the studies that purport that only hold true for Buenos Aires (the metropolitan area at that, not the entire province). The unexpectedly high percentage rate of people showing a contribution of African genes (I think it was 10% of all people in Buenos Aires) is mainly because almost all Afro-Argentines during the colonial period (when they conformed a large percentage of the population there) lived in that area, and then disappeared (i.e. were absorbed). Other areas around Argentina would have nowhere near that percentage rate of people carrying African genetic markers simply because in other places around the country there were hardly any slaves. Rates of people with Amerindians genetic contribution, on the other hand, increase exponentially in the interior provinces more so than in Buenos Aires (although also relatively high here). As for stating a precise percentage for whites (85%, 88%, 97%, etc.) , I think it is best for us to stay away from CIA figures because of other problems that have arisen in other countries' articles with percentages concerning “ethic groups” that are to be found on the CIA’s facts website. Let's just state that the majority in Argentina are white (either unmixed or phenotypically, whatever), and not quote a percentage. If we really must, then it should be from sources other than just the CIA (if I recall, sources from within Argentina have always stated 85% white, it is only the CIA - and publications who quote the CIA - that says 97%). We all know, or at least those that know Argentina (beyond Buenos Aires and the three Atlantic provinces), that a good proportion of the country is not white (though whites are still the majority), and by this I'm not talking about those with distant Amerindian ancestry (whom are white for all purposes and a part of the white majority). I'm talking about the identifiably mestizo populations of the interior, and the reduced (but again growing) number of mestizo historically a part of the large urban centres and those due to more recent internal and external migration. Al-Andalus 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)'

Al-Andalus, please join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Argentina. Thanks. —This We'll Defend (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does the Demographics section start with the genetic research? It sounds illogical. The Genetical research should be a Nevertheless to the Argentina’s population is primarily of European extraction and not the other way around. Also, I thikn it would be best to leave this topics in a compact version for the Argentina article, to be expanded in the Demographics article, and not having several paragraphs duplicated!!!! Mariano(t/c) 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'll start rewording it. Al-Andalus 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Done! Al-Andalus 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mariano; as stated before, the main information must be on Demographics of Argentina. --Darklegions 06:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As with your understaing of the rest of this discussion, you've once again not understood extremely simple comments. This time it is those made by user Mariano (correct me if I'm wrong Mariano). What Mariano has said is that all the sourced content in the updated article will remain (as opposed to the old edition you revert to, which is full of earlier omissions and deletions), although it will be condensed into fewer words (a compacted version) for THIS article, and expanded in the main Demographics article.

On another note, before all other users in this talk page I plead to you once again, that you cease from deleting the entire content on the indigenous population of Argentina from this article. As you see, there is a consensus that that info be kept. Al-Andalus 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk with users in question and post of my request for intervention

Hi Al-Andalus. Can we discuss the issue on Talk:Demographics of Argentina first, and then do the changes? Thanks! --Darklegions 18:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to get the user to get into chat to contribute beyond his one and only post 5 made by him to disagree (without debate) against the consensus.

I hope you remember my contributions have always been made using only valid sources from reputable agencies (in this case from Argentine government departments and agencies, and other reputable Argentine private or independant agencies and institutions), and I mention your support for my manner and quality of research at Talk:Demographics of Chile. I expect there is no bias on your part, and hope you may see my work with the same merit. Al-Andalus 18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I ask you once more, that if you are thinking of reverting yet again with an accompanying edit summary that cites a discussion in Talk:, then have at least contributed to that Talk: or make changes that reflect the consenus of the discussion your are citing. It will be considered misrepresentation and vandalism if you revert while citing a “Talk:” that: a) you haven’t contributed and continue refusing to contribute to, and; b) whose stated consensus reflects the opposite of what your revert achieves. Al-Andalus 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I only think we must all calm down a bit and stop reverting changes, this applies also for you. I really doubt that OneEuropeanHeart has any bias against you or the articles, he's our finest contibutors here. BTW, why are you acussing me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? --Darklegions 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also named you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina because you made one of the reverts that deleted all the information on the well sourced indigenous communities of Argentina, and all other content that came from the Argentine Census, INDEC agencies, and other reputable Argentine institutions. Since then, you've done it again (here), despite so many users in Talk:Argentina#Demographics demanding that the information be kept, and the fact that so many users have had to keep vigil over the article against those who come and delete all that information. I ask, why do you 3 keep deleting that content? Obviously there is great objection on your part to the mentioning of Argentina's past and present indigenous contribution, yet none of you have ever participated in any of the relevant discussions in the Talk: pages, apart from the "discussion still in progress" edit summaries that accomnay your reverts; despite none of you having actually contributed to said discussion, and dispite the fact that consensus in the discussions you cite in your edit summaries actually plead for the opposite of what you keep doing.

Apart from your now 2 reverts (which take the article to the edition that lacks all the information from the Census, INDEC, Genetics findings from the UBA, and other data from Argentine institutions and agencies), most of my post in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina concentrates on the other two users, and it says "The users, especially OneEuropeanHeart and VsA, continue..."

WHAT???!!! Listen guy, I don't care what are you thinking about or want to do, but calm down and stop your mafiosi-like comments, or I'll personally request intervention on this. --Darklegions 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't state "I already talked with him" in your edit summary if all you've done is posted a message to me that contains nothing more than a request for me not to revert from the version you insist on keeping (the version that has all the missing information described above). At least have detailed WHY you don't want the content you keep reverting out of the article, so it can lend some credence to the statement that you have "already talked with me" about it. And I don't care where you post it; on my talk page, on Talk:Argentina#Demographics, on Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself, Post wherever you want. The point is, just make a relevant post that actually contributes to the discussion and states your oppositions and sources to strengthen your position and intended changes/additions/omissions. Al-Andalus 18:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina

Could someone please intervene in the revert war that is going on at those two articles. Users OneEuropeanHeart, VsA, and Darklegions continuously revert to an old edition (which is incomplete and full of deliberate omissions) from the newer one translated from the comprehensive, sourced and overall better Spanish Wikipedia's [Argentina] article. As far as I have understood, the consensus as it stands in Talk:Argentina#Demographics and Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself, is that all the information in the edition that has been imported from the Spanish Wikipedia will be kept, and the discussion that currently is continuing is to decide what parts should be condensed into fewer words.

The users, especially OneEuropeanHeart and VsA, continue deleting all the newly introduced content from the Spanish Wikipedia which is itself sourced from the Argentine Census, INDEC, Argentine government institutions and agencies, and the genetic findings of the Genetics Department of Argentina's most reputable institution, the University of Buenos Aires. They continue deleting absolutely all information on the indigenous community of Argentina, so that there is no longer any mention of the indigenous population at all. Also, many users have now put protest to the use of the CIA when concerning ethic groups, and this is not only on the Argentina article (this concern can be found in both talk pages, as well as in Talk:Demographics of Chile).

While they revert, all three users have deceptively written "discussion it's still on progress" in the edit summary, but none of the three have actually contributed to either discussion, whether Talk:Argentina#Demographics or Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself (except for OneEuropeanHeart when he made one single comment prior to the revert war to merely disagree against consensus, without actually adding anything to the debate), and the consensus of the Talk: pages that they cite during their reverts actually go against the reverts that they are making (reverts that delete all the above mentioned Argentine government department and agencies, private Argentine and Argentine institutional sources and all mention of Argentina’s indigenous community.) Al-Andalus 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen everyone! I popose a pact, just like the Falkland Islands article, I propose to leave the version to wich this 3 users revert everything for a couple of days until we solve the "problems" because:

Argentina is a Good Article and protecting it would mean to give up with this status, because GAs must not be affected by edit wars, Trying to keep the version with the dna info would be impossible and the edit war'd continue and It would give us enough time to reach consensus.

But we should agree to keep that version and revert any changes to it until a consensus is reached. Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection should have been enforced already, really, regardless of the Good Article status, but if everyone stops changing and reverting, we can get by without it. Page protection essentially means that a group of editors cannot behave or control themselves, so I'd be glad not to have to resort to it. Moreover, I have a position of my own in this issue, and if I protected the page then it would be unethical of me to participate in the discussion.

My opinion is that the Demographics section should contain a brief reference to everything in Demographics of Argentina in the current version (version 50909039 as of this moment). As I said there also, raw "race" figures from CIA, Encarta etc. should not be considered more correct or important than e. g. genetic research. "Race" percentages are the product of surveys - people's opinions of themselves - not of scientific analyses of ancestry, and we don't have a clue what methodology was used to gather the data.

Of course, I advise that the Demographics main article should not be changed, just as this one. Feel free to cross-post this to its talk page. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pablo, I applaud you. Finally some articulate reasoning. That I happen to agree with you I consider a bonus. It’s the constructive value that your post actually adds to the discussion which I admire most, especially being that this discussion was slowly becoming stagnant due to the refusal of one side of the debate to actually contribute to the discussion (though a surplus of energy they had in instituting their changes in the article). All I ask is for people, no matter what their positions in a debate be, that they present a worthy corroborated argument in the defense of their position/s. This is the only way things can progress.

I would just like to say that I vigorously concur with the second sentence of your second paragraph: "As I said there also, raw "race" figures from CIA, Encarta etc. should not be considered more correct or important than e. g. genetic research. "Race" percentages are the product of surveys - people's opinions of themselves - not of scientific analyses of ancestry, and we don't have a clue what methodology was used to gather the data." This should've been blatantly obvious.

The thing is, despite my strong unequivocal personal objection to the priority that was being given to the set of “raw” data in question, for the precise reasons you have cited, my intention was never to obstruct it's actual inclusions in the article. All I asked for is that ALL other information and data originating from what happen to be greater sources (especially being from such accredited Argentine institutions and agencies, whether governmental or independent) should have been given priority given the subject is Argentina. THEN, if need be, and a consensus is met (which I would be willing to join) that the other "raw" figures be included as an alternative. What should always be done, no matter where the sources come from, is that they clearly state the methodologies of how each came to their conclusions, because this is the fundamental aspect as to why in some subject matters there is such discrepancies between findings. Al-Andalus 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SENSE

...In the past few decades, the mestizo population has increased due mostly to internal migrations from the Argentine interior to Buenos Aires and other large urban districts.

That doesn't make any sense If We're talking about an internal migration then the population would remain intact.

Demographics info is very far from scientific rigurosity (Your sources are newspapers for god sake!!) Only offical studies should be included in an encyclopedia otherwise the article is not neutral. Chelardo 08:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you quoted above refers to mestizo population in the larger urban centers. It should be corrected, but it's not difficult to see what's wrong and it's rather rude to call it nonsense. As for the sources, they're perfectly good studies that were cited in newspaper articles. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry ,I didn't mean to be rude but I still think is far from scientific rigurosity, we're talking about more than 20 million people, and that my friend is a whole bunch of people.You should specify in the same paragraph the amount of individuals that were studied. In the USA no one would ever make that kind of statement because DNA studies are unethical and related to hate groups. By the way, I think the paragraph meant to say the following: "In the past few decades, the mestizo population has increased due mostly to inmigration from other countries."

What do u think? Chelardo 06:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the para means that the visible mestizo population has increased due to internal migration from small rural communities to urban areas, so that official censuses and popular perception have seen an increase.

DNA studies are of course accepted, in the US and elsewhere - it's the National Geographic that is funding and disseminating much of this research. Like all scientific and statistical data it can be misused, but here results are simply being reported, not commented upon. Mtiedemann 07:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The genetic testing is wrong

I have found an article (and other like it) that prove it is pretty much impossible to prove Native American heritage. http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html

(24.60.161.63 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Please, try to be a little bit more constructive with your comments. The article you provide certanly questions the genetic test to identify Native Americans, and is very interesting. By no means should we ignore such analisys, but perhaps we could keep references to both studies: the genetic research, and its critic. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article says that trying to determine NA heritage with mtDNA testing 1) yields many false negatives; 2) yields some false positives. It doesn't say that it's impossible to do it. In fact, when applied to large populations, it probably underestimates the number of people with NA heritage, especially since many of the false positives can be readily discarded by asking the person about its heritage (if they say they have a Samoan or Japanese female ancestor, for example). I think the observation is valuable, but it belongs in the article about genetic testing, not here. In any case one must assume that the scientists who conducted the tests know about these things and didn't just release a raw number without taking them into account.

I might also point out that the criticism in question is found in the website of an organization called Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and is written specifically to highlight the problems of native affiliation in the U.S., where people can benefit from affirmative action policies if they can prove they're part of a minority group. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was impossible, just nearly impossible, sorry about that. Anyways, they have found that many Southern Europeans have these "Markers" and this matchs exactally to Argentina, since many are from Spain and Italy (Southern European countries). So therefore if a vast number of people where surveyed they could yield the results found in the testing. These "markers" would most likely show up in many Argentines since many are of Southern European decent. The "Clarin" article states very clearly what "markers" they used. All this matches the article I posted. The article clearly says many scientist simply just don't enough about these markers and only a few do. The Clarin article does not state that they know about how many people throughout the world share these same "halogroups" or "Markers" and therefore there is no proof that they knew about this. Also The article states for Native Americans testing and they compare to many different kinds of people in the world, so in context you can assume its not just the Native Americans in the US. So I hardly dought that also. Since there were also Native Americans that lived on the boarders of what is now the Canada and Mexico. (24.60.161.63 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm on favour of keeping the genetic test, and adding at its end a comment such as though some scientist disbelieve of such genetic markers test with the corresponding reference: let the reader draw his/her conclusions. Mariano(t/c) 08:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not why? because it hasnt been proven yet 100 why make an article that isnt 100 precent and that has many flaws? I agree that people have a right to make up there mind about opionion subjects the Demographics of Argentina are not this case however. The research reported by Clarin, althought it was professional it's was flawed. No point on adding flawed information or disproven imformation.(24.60.161.63 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Could you tell us where you're getting all these data from? You mentioned only one article, and that's what I criticized. It doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The genetic study must mean something, or else no respected scientist would use it... Also, nothing is 100% certain, but neither is it true that people "have a right to make up their opinion" in every case. We should only present reputable opinions based on good science. Neither you nor I have the credentials to disqualify a scientific study based on our opinions. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pablo, you have not read the article very carefully it seems, I QUOTE now: "Some of the haplotypes attributed to Native Americans are also found in people from other parts of the world.Å A, B, C, and D are found in North Asia, and X is found in southern Europe and Turkey. In fact, the principal marker of haplotype B is called the "9 base pair deletion," and is found in some Japanese and almost all Samoans. Could they then be classified as genetically Native American?Å These tests cannot even establish with certainty that, for example, someoneªs motherªs motherªs mother was Native American‚they can at best establish a certain probability that this was the case." This makes it very clear. This is also a genetic study so this also must mean something, and yes your genetic study does mean something, but it does not mean that 56 precent of Argentines have Native American hertiage. It most likely means that 56 precent carry this "marker". So it does mean something I am not trying to say it doesn't mean anything. However, it is incorrect. That is all I am saying. Not to put down your Clarin article and make it seem useless but I dont think it belongs in the Argentine Demographics section. I presented this article to show you that it has been proven that Genetic testing for Native Americans is Faultly at best. Also, you say it does not support Native Americans from South America... Really then how come also do testing on Native Americans from South America? They state on there website they are for all Native Americans and have collected there genetical studies also from South American natives. Your right we don't we can only look at the facts, but these are both genetical studys and one clearly gives more detail about why the other is faulty. (24.60.161.63 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Wow! This study is very interesting! This clearly disproves the Clarin.com article, that the way sciencists find Native American Ancestry is still flawed. I would have never known. I agree however, the Genetic study on Clarin.com should not be mentioned as this seems to be a newer study. I can see why such a high precentage of Argentines had the "Marker" as it occurs in Southern Europe,Turkey and Northern Asia. I don't think we should include old imformation on this article. The Demographics of Argentina should be factual not based on opinion of the reader as most sources will tell you.(209.150.51.78 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

I repeat, the paper doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The Clarín article is not "disproved"; the genetic study gives results that must be interpreted. The cited paper is not a newer study, it's just criticism of the method employed to identify Amerindian heritage. In light of the above, I've changed the relevant information in Demographics of Argentina and here. I agree that so much detail could be skipped in this article, though certainly not in the specific Demographics article, so I wouldn't have a problem with removing the mention of the genetic study from Argentina if there's a consensus about it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay your right it doesnt say "many" but it does say Southern Europeans do. So just on the merit it must be atleast present to some common degree if they were able to find it in Southern European populations. Which would yield such closely results as 56 precent and not lets say 75 precent or so. Okay I agree about removing the genetic study because it is clearly too unclear if its 100 precent correct or not.

(24.60.161.63 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Very fanicasting Article. It clearly shows there are many flaws in how Scienists prove Ameridian Ancestry. After reviewing the article, I must say to leave out the previous genetical study found at Clarin.com. Thank you. (69.16.84.36 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

As I said before, I also agree with removing the other Genetic Study. There is simply too much against it.(209.150.51.78 02:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. I also think anyone should help from it being put back up again, from those like Al-Andalus, who even Pablo-Flores has had problems with.(DJBenny 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Ehm, I agree with removing the paragraph about the genetic tests, but I'd like to hear from other, long established editors as well. DJBenny, please wait before changing so many tiny bits of the article. I do not agree with the simplistic "97% white"; that's a raw number from the CIA Factbook and really says nothing to the reader. See all the previous (long!) discussion in Talk:Demographics of Argentina. I really really think we should avoid all references to race unless we know what the method is to qualify it (e. g. "97% of Argentinians call themselves 'white'" or "according to CIA agents Mulder and Scully,¹ 97% of Argentinians are phenotypically white"). Then there's the number/percentage of Jews -- what's with that? Please, anybody, bring forth good sources and give your opinion, and then we can change the article. Remember this is a Good Article, so in principle it shouldn't need any of us making major changes. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ¹ Yeah, I know they're FBI, not CIA. I've been thinking in Japanese for the last two hours, so bear with me. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about this I mean I understand it gives it says nothing to reader, but however all the other Nation pages are like this. Okay how about something like "97 precent of Argentines are of European decent or so" . I can Understand your position though. It did anger me however, that Germans weren't even considered on the top 3. We all know as Argentines,Pablo-Flores, that Germans in Argentina are not all uncommon, in fact they are very common. The 2 precent Jewish estaminate comes from the CIA world fact book and is already a part of the Demographics of Argentina page so I just put that there instead of having the articles saying two different things. I hope your not critizing me for putting bogus stuff up this was all from the previous Argentina page with the exception to the 2 precent Jewish estimate. I am sorry if my changes were very drastic, however Al-Andalus changed much and did the same and if I remember correctly you weren't to happy with it either. haha its okay I have had those days myself =P (DJBenny 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Because of the possible errors in Clarin, i agree to delete. Now: someone changed "Himno Nacional Argentino" for "Marcha de la Patria", a name that has not been used for decades so I think i'll deletre that now. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Me being happy or unhappy about something is not the issue (I don't own this article) but whether the source is good and other editors agree (I mean especially those at WP:AR, who've been around for a while). I don't know how numerous German-descended people are; I think there are many but I don't have a number. According to the sources of Immigration in Argentina, in the period 1895-1947 there were more immigrants from Poland, Russia and France than from Germany. Placing Germany next to Spain and Italy suggests a very large contribution from Germany, which is not the case (and this is common public knowledge).

I've just tidied up the article. You tell me what it looks like. It mentions the 97%, even though I still think it doesn't mean nothing (the CIA doesn't explain what it means, though it does say that "white" is considered an ethnic group, but see the problems with the term white). The Clarín ref is gone. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad to see a conclusionm. I would have to disagree with you on that one Pablo Germans have been a very important group moving to Argentina however most of them came after world war II so that be from 1945 all the way from 1955 around there. Even though we can not find an number of people who are German we know from our "common Argentine exprience" Germans are very common in Argentina. Many of the numbers I found were to varied so I really don't trust them. I found this one article: http://www.geographia.com/argentina/buenosaires/Index.htm saying that Italian and German names today outnumber Spanish names. So Germans must be, and I know just from living in Argentina pratically all my life that finding out Argentines with a German Ancestry. Also remember to be "German" back in 1800's and early 1900's was a very loose term most of since many Volga Germans came from Russia, which made up the bulk of Russian immigration to Argentina during the 1800's and early 1900's. Also from the Austrian-Hungrian Empire which much of there resident were also German. The reason I put German as the thrid because I feel that it is part of the "big three" for say obviously Italians and Spaniards are more. Tell me Pablo-Flores How is it learning Japanese?(DJBenny 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

www.geographia.com information is utterly ridiculous, as any sampling of an Argentinian phone directory would show :) Cinabrium 08:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal

The study by Corach et al. is not wrong: the data in the article at [1] (which, BTW, incurs in a lamentable confusion between haplogroups and haplotypes) is by no means "new research" invalidating the study. The characteristic distribution of A, B, C, D and X haplogroups is well known to human geneticists, and I'll be greatly surprised if Corach's team hadn't take that into account. But let's start from the beginning...

What does the study say?

That 56% of the a 12000-people sample shows american aboriginal genetic markers from female or male lineage, or both (in 10% of "positive" cases). The study shows that 53,3% of mtDNA samples didn't show Amerindian markers (the 56% result is obtained by the combination of the results on Y chromosome DYS199 marker [male lineage] and mtDNA [female lineage]).

Who did it?

"Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas" (Genetic Fingerprints Service), Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Universidad de Buenos Aires. The main researcher, Dr. Daniel Corach, is a widely known human geneticist, having published dozens of papers on genetic identification of human groups (just google for his name); his main aide, Dr. Andrea Sala, has also wide experience in the field and has published a number of studies on the same subjects (Sala A., Penacino G., Goycoechea A., Carnese R., Tomeo A. and Corach D. (1996). The Genetic Structure of Four Argentine Ethnic Groups Reflected by the Analysis of Ten STRs. Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics 6 :662-664; Sala A., Penacino G. and Corach D.(1997) VNTR Polymorphism in the Buenos Aires-Argentina Metropolitan Population. Human Biology Dec. 69(6) :777-783; Sala A., Gustavo Penacino and Daniel Corach. (1998). Comparison of Allele Frequencies of Eight STR Loci from Argentinan Amerindian and European Populations. Human Biology Oct.70(5):937-947; Sala A., Penacino G., Iannucci N. and D. Corach (1998). STR Database from Argentina: Statistical Comparison with other Population Databases. Progress in Forensic Genetics 7 347-349.; Sala A., Gustavo Penacino, Raúul Carnese and Daniel Corach. Reference Database of Hypervariable Genetic Markers of Argentina: Applications for Molecular Anthropology and Forensic Casework. Electrophoresis (1999).208):1733-1739. to cite a few).

What does IPCB's article say?

"The concept of using genetic tests to prove Native American ancestry is of relatively recent origin, but there are many problems with it. Perhaps foremost of these problems is that to make a genetic test the arbiter of whether someone is Native American is to give up a tribe’s sovereign ability to determine its own membership and relations. But, even taken on their own scientific terms, these tests cannot do much to identify who is and who is not Native American, because they yield many false negatives and false positives. Therefore, they readily misidentify non-Native people as Native, and misidentifying Native people as non-Native, and the positive results they do yield are at best only probabilities. If these were medical diagnostic tests, they would never be approved or adopted.

But the most important argument against this type of testing to establish tribal affiliations is that biology (and genetics) track just part of our tribal inheritance. These DNA tests treat “Native American biology” as though all Indians were essentially the same. But in reality, it is our traditions that make us who we are, not just our biology.

Who wrote it?

Brett Lee Shelton, J.D., Director of Policy and Research for IPCB, and Jonathan Marks, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina and a member of IPCB's Board of Directors. None of them is a geneticist.

Is there any contradiction?=

No, None at all. Corach's study indicates that a certain percentage of a population shows some established genetic markers. Most specifically, they analyzed DYS199 marker in Y chromosome, and then the presence of haplogroups A, B, C, D and X2 in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). The analysis of DYS199 marker differs from the search for haplotypes M3 and M43 that, according to Shelton and Marks, yields "false negatives". But even if the former yields any rate of false negatives, that would say that 56% is the lower bound of Argentinians with some (and I undrline "some") indigenous inheritance. Haplogroups A, B, C and D are also present in Altaic populations; haplogroup B is present among Japanese and is prevalent among Samoans. In fact, the presence of that haplogroups is one of the main arguments in support of the theory of Asian origin of amerindians through Bering Strait. We should agree that Altaic and/or Samoan immigration in Argentina lacks any statistical significance that would yield to "false positives". Haplogroup X is quite different. In fact there are three variants of this group (see). X1 is not very significant, and is limited to North and East Africa and the Middle East. X2 is present in about 2% of European population, with a slightly higher proportion in Mediterranean Europe and Turkey, and higher concentrations in Georgia (8%), Orkney Islands (7%) and among Israeli Druses (24%). X2a is present among 3% of Native Americans, particularly among Ojibwa (25%), Sioux (15%) and Navajo (7%). "Distance" from X2a to X2 is similar to that from X2 to X1. These data regarding mtDNA haplogroups geographical distribution is well known since long time, and of course known to Corach and his team.

Now let's make some assumptions...

If we assume that well known scientists became suddenly stupid and ignored the well known percentage of X haplogroup among European peoples, the Corach's study has a 2% range of error (do your own math!)

Conclusions

Corach et al.'s study and Shelton and Marks article point into different directions. The first studies human genotypes among Argentinian population. The second goes in subsidy of a political thesis (to which I strogly agree): that belonging to an aboriginal people is not a genetic, but a cultural issue. Unless new research gives a counterproof to Corach's results, we should still consider them scientifically valid. This is not a matter of "whiteness", "blackness", "brownness" or "pinkness" (for the Argentinians, and particularly those of Cordoba reading this, please remember the Cordobese chromatic scale: "verde botea, amarío patito y nero culíao" x-D). Fenotypical" Amerindian inheritance in Argentina is not very significant, but by no means could lead to the ridiculous 97% CIA figure; genotypical" Amerindian inheritance is significant. The great difference among the figures of population having Amerindian markers from paternal or maternal lineage and those having them from both shows the little numerical significance of aboriginal peoples in current Argentina's population and its development thorugh the last century. Please bring the study data back (perhaps with a better wording, as "a study [ref] shows that about 56% of current Argentinian population have at least one Amerindian ancestor".

Please let me do a final remark: we're speaking of genotypes, not fenotypes. We are speaking of genetics, a useful manner to trace our ancestry and the places from where they came. We are not speaking of "races", whatever that word means. "Race" is not a scientific concept, but a political one. And, as said in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, "any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous."

Regards from the Far South, Cinabrium 08:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's been very clarifying. I still think that this should be mentioned, if at all, in Demographics of Argentina, since a precise wording would be a bit long, and a precise and detailed wording plus the unavoidable explanations (as above) would severely bloat the main article. Could you help us get a nice paragraph over there, which covers the results and (summarized) the possible objections?

You'll notice how I qualified the "97% white". I don't think the figure is very useful, but at least it appears that the CIA employed the self-identification method to get to it (that is implied in the term "ethnic group" that appears in the CIA Factbook). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all Just because they have these markers doesnt mean they have Native American blood. if 56 precent of the population has them that is still be determined as some and not all. So why is that any different? They are both creitable sources and they contrdict eachother the Clarin.com article does not state they looked over these halogroups either so you can not simply put it back. It is not a 100 precent genetic research study. Where are your sources stating that sciencist know about this also? The Clarin.com Article doesnt state this infact it states the same 5 Halogroups used, that this very article is saying proves negative results. (DJBenny 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, i thought we agreed with the removal... What is your point? Your argument does not disprove or make the Clarin study any more convincing. I mean It clearly states the halogroups they used and the opposing article says those Halogroups are found in many people throughout the world... (24.60.161.63 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

It is not the case that we can leave something out just because it doesn't look right. Cinabrium has provided us with a lot of information we didn't have before. Try to read it. I form my opinions with the information I have, and I have absolutely no problem with changing them. The study mentioned in Clarín is significant, and in fact I'd be glad to put it back somewhere, provided the possible problems are also mentioned, as discussed above. DJBenny, Clarín doesn't say that Corach et al knew this or that, but since he's an authority we should assume he didn't forget such important issues. Let me make myself clear: I couldn't care less what the final result is, as long as it is both correct and correctly expressed. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At least for me, I am sure they are saying the same thing,I dont think they are trying to leave anything out "just because it doesn't look right. I am not also saying the clarin article is worthless it is sigfiance but what does it prove? However your arugment is flawed because the Clarin article does mention they used Y-Chromsomes for research and Maternal DNA here where they say it: "En esa larga hilera de combinaciones que forman al Cromosoma Y, hay un marcador conocido con siglas y números: DYS199." You did not include the whole sentance it seems. This is exactally what the the other article is going against. You also said Johantan Marks has no genetic exprienece? You are mistaken then because if you click his name on the page it states that he is indeed an expert "Jonathan Marks, Ph.D., Vice-Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte. He brings expertise in molecular anthropology, evolutionary theory, history, human genetics, and sociology and philosophy of science." None of your information gathered however states what precentage is found in the Y-Chromsomes. And since they found that most Woman lacked this marker it does not determine that those 56 precent of Argenitnes had a Ameridian father. So your arguemnt is some what flawed. (69.16.84.36 00:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Yeah to say Jonathan Marks is not a genetics experts and not finding out first is ridiculous. Also the M3 halogroup is linked with the DYS199. Known as M3/DYS199. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180698 So yeah this does relate to the Idigenious peoples page because they say spefically this halogroup is not reilable. Another article i found states this "Seven biallelic polymorphisms (M3 or DYS199, M19, 92R7, M9, YAP, M2 or DYS271, and RPS4Y711)" So they are the same gene M3 and DYS199. So it is still not only a Native American trait just like what the Idigenious peoples website. (DJBenny 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Also might I add X2 is not found in only 2 precent of Europeans: "Virtually all (97.2%) haplogroup X mtDNAs from the Near East, the South Caucasus, and Europe were found to belong to subhaplogroup X2...." http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000402.html it goes on to say once again what the IPBC said "Overall, it appears that the populations of the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe harbor subhaplogroup X2 at higher frequencies than those of northern and northeastern Europe (P < .05) and that X2 is rare in Eastern European as well as Central Asian, Siberian, and Indian populations and is virtually absent in the Finno-Ugric and Turkic-speaking people of the Volga-Ural region".(24.60.161.63 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

24.60.161.63, Please read again what you have written. X haplogroup is found in about 2% of that population (however, you may find other figures up to 5%; statiscally good samples are rare). As I said above, X1 is quite uncommon, and your figure validates my judgement: 97.2% of X-haplogroup population belongs to the X2 subgroup. If you are really interested in this matter, let me suggest you a reading of the very article you are citing, Maere Reidla et al., "Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X", Am J Hum Genet. November 2003; 73(5): 1178–1190.

69.16.84.36, I have not said that Dr. Marks has no genetics expertise; I've just said he's no a geneticist. His field of research is Anthropology, including the amazing field of Molecular Anthropology. If you take a look to the list of papers he published since 1991, you will see that they are mostly devoted to anthropological issues. On the other hand, neither I nor the Corach's paper are trying to say that 56% of Argentinians have an Amerindian father or mother, but that they have some (at least one) Amerindian ancestors. The marker will be present if the grand-grand-grand-mother of a subject's grand-grand-grand-mother was Amerindian, even if all the other 255 ancestors of the same generation were not. Unfortunately, I don't have the precise figures for Y chromosome tests (I couldn't put my eyes on the original paper yet) but some simple math helps :). If 47.7% of women had the markers, and the total figure is 56%, and 5.6% of the sampled populations show both paternal and maternal markers, men with Amerindian markers must be 13.9%. Anyways, this discussion is turning somewhat byzantine; I oppose the very concept of "race", and am just trying to point out that the hybridation between Aboriginal peoples and European immigrants was higher than the "common wisdom" might reflect.

DJBenny, Please excuse me, but I don't understand your point. Not being a native speaker, I have some difficulties for reading your English. Could you please state it again? Thankyou!

Cinabrium 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, He can still be trust of course because of his background, it also states very clearly he is an expert in genetics so there is no arguing that point. All the research I have done it just validates his point even more. Yeah I am sorry I hope this is better, basically you said that the Idigenious peoples article only talks about the M3 and M45 haplogroup. yes this is true however, the clarin.com article spefically mentions very clearly that it used the DYS199 as you said. However, Cinabrium these are the same as you can see from the sources I looked up the M3 or DYS199 as it is also called. So the articles do contridict and one clearly shows why Native American testing is not reliable. So I think we shouldn't put up an article that is that clearly has strong research back behind it. I agree with you on the opppsition of "race" however, I don't believe putting up conflicting articles will make it any better. (DJBenny 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Not at all many he's has many papers on the that website that are about genetics. I agree with your point there DJBenny and Pablo-Flores maybe we could say something different instead of saying 97 precent of Argentines are white. However, the Clarin article is faulty , which this kind of thing happens in science often. (24.60.161.63 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Ethnicity

I am sick and tired of those who constantly correct the paragraphs on Argentina's demographics to state that Argentina is a completely white country. Are they daltonic or what? Can't they see that in northern provinces there is a vast majority of people who are, directly or indirectly, of indian descent? Where the hell did they get that piece of info that Argentina is 97% white? May be those who wrote the World Fact Book just paid a short visit to Buenos Aires, looked around, asked a few questions and got the usual "Have you realised that Buenos Aires looks like Paris? Don't you think Argentine women are the most beautiful?" comments. But why doesn't it surprise me at all? Not recognizing that Argentina is a multicultural country is very typical of porteños.

Marcelo

Salta

I'd say some of us are also getting sick and tired of being attacked by your unconstructive, aggressive comments. As you may have seen (or not), we've been discussing this particular problem. I don't like the CIA WF but they must have used some method to get to that 97% figure. Buenos Aires + Capital + Córdoba + Santa Fe are mostly "European" and 2/3 of Argentina lives there.

I suggest that you calm down and contribute instead of accusing. Up to this point this has been a content dispute. That's fine. If you continue to push your POV into the article without serious discussion, or just using insults, it will become vandalism, and treated as such. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah your arugments are very much flawed. All of the CIA world fact book information is VERY creditable. I agree with Pablo-Flores I am also sick and tired of being attacked by your unhelpful incorrect information The Northern Provinces are also still mostly European also So calm down. Stop trying to put your POV across and insulting other users. (DJBenny 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

The parameters of the CIA World Book published after the year 2000 relating to Argentina's population were changed to deem all Argentines as White, including native mestizos (ie. those who are and always have been Argentines, and are not mestizo immigrants or their descendants). The CIA today only considers the foreign mestizo population in Argentina as mestizo, bringing mestizos down to 2%. 1% is said to be Amerindian, and together they are supposedly the "3% non-Whites".

"The Northern Provinces are also still mostly European also"? You must be kiding. Right? This is beyond a joke. To what lengths will you go? As the user said, go to Salta, go to Jujuy, go to Santiago del Estero, go to Corrientes, and many other provinces and the most common faces are those of mestizos. Buenos Aires is NOT representative of all Argentina. The mestizo element (I mean phenotypically mestizo, not just genetically) in the Argentine interior is the most predominant element, which is only THEN followed by whites (whether pure or perhaps merely phenotypically white), and to a much lesser degree Amerindians. These regions together may only hold 35% of the country's total population, but that is no small proportion. I will concede, however, that when I say that these regions are majority mestizo, I mean majority in the sense of anything over 50% (could be be 90%, could be 80%, or 60%, or just over the 50%) and the whites, depending on which area of the Argentina interior, may themselves go to close to 50%.

Statistic from Argentine institutions have never stated, and still don't state (other than those that merely regurgetate CIA stats), anything less than 15% as native Argentine (ie. not immigrant or descendants) mestizos. This 15% mestizo is what the CIA also cited until a few years ago, after which they decided on their own that the parameters would change.

Ethnic groups: European 85%, mostly of Spanish and Italian descent. Mestizo, Amerindian or other nonwhite groups 15%. (source: CIA) Ethnic groups: European 97%, mostly of Spanish and Italian descent; Mestizo, Amerindian or other nonwhite groups 3% (source: CIA)

Given the fact that a simple visit to the country would easily prove that mestizos easily surpass 15%, I think it is just a grotesc and distorted POV to quote an obviously erred source which has taken upon itself to fabricate the figure of 97% based on parameters that it saw fit to apply for whatever reason.

Also, we already know that genetic findings of the University of Buenos Aires have shown that the majority of the population also has some degree of admixture, even it for the majority of these those markers do not manifest phenotypically. I see that the findings have been removed from the article, yet again, with one users argument that the findings are flawed. The user based his argument on questioning the uniqueness of the markers used as indicators of Amerindian descent. With the aid of one website which I will discredit in the following paragraphs, the user argued that the markers used were not unique to Amerindian and were found in Southern European populations (a population that represents most of the European element in Argnetina).

I don't know if the user is aware, but Haplogroup Q3 is indeed unique to the Americas, not found even in North Asia (from where the first Americans entered the New World), and much less Europe, or Southern Europe as he specified. I'm surprised the lengths people will go to deny the Amerindian heritage of Argentina. The mutation ocured in the New World, and is present by almost every indigenous South American, and most indigenous North Americans with the exception of the Na-Dené ethno-linguistic groups (such as Navajo) and indigenous Arctic American and Canadians (Inuit, Aleut, etc) which are relatively recent entries into the American continent (around 8,000 years ago) and posess only Eurasian markers (which are common to Asians and some Europeans).

The other markers (earlier Eurasian clusters) that are found in Amerindian populations but may also be found to a lesser degree in some Asian and European populations were not those used as he claims.

In any case, the website which authored and hosts the article where he got his boloney, is an unscientific fring Native American group which has posted deceptive and purpusfull misinterpretations in the attempt to distort genetic research on Native American. There is a reason why they do this. The mere name of the group gives their neutrality a battergin; Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB). Their aim of discrediting Native American genetic reaserch, by their use of unsupposted and scientifically discredited claims is to discourage Native Americans from being solicited or seeking genetic testing, citing an abuse of Native American genetic heritage. They state indigenous people do not need the affirmation for their identity, and they then wrote article such as the one used as a source to fasely discredit the genetic works of the world's leadingg scientists.

Noble as their mission statement may sound, "The IPCB is organized to assist indigenous peoples in the protection of their genetic resources, indigenous knowledge, cultural and human rights from the negative effects of biotechnology", if you research the site a little, you will come to learn that a large slant of the groups motives is not so much a noble fight against "biocolonialsm", but to prevent science undermining indigenous mythology and oral history of the ancient populating of lands and their calims over property, ancient remains, and all economic benefits that derive from these.

So, now I would like to once again insist that the genetic findings be reinstated in it's sumarised form as so tenuasly discussed and consensed here previously. Al-Andalus 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Andalus, can you please state which academic journal the Corach et al study is published and peer reviewed? I would be interested to read the whole study rather than a brief summary of the results in a tabloid article, thanks. --Coldheartedman 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Haplogroup Q3 is a Y chromosome which of course is only past on from the fathers side. Not of much interest when were are talking about 'mestizos' because according to Dr Corach over 85% of people with Amerindian ancestry are genetically Amerindian from their maternal side like elsewhere in Latin America. However, the fact that Argentina is overwhelmingly European in descent is something Dr Daniel Corach has scientifically validated. [1] --Coldheartedman 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Will try. Till then, the concern is also about the "97% white" figure, and the fact that it is quoted in the article at all; considering the controversy over its accuracy.

While a simple visit to the country would confirm the true proportion of mestizos and whites, not everyone is as fortunate as us to have been to Argentina and know from experience. In common everyday perceptions for those who have been or live in Argentina, and a population history which corroborates it, the true ethnic distribution of Argentina more closely resembles the earlier data given by the CIA (the one which states 85% white, 15% mestizos, amerindian and others). All estimates given by Argentine institutions (which don't merely repeat the latest CIA figure) also estimates no less than 15% mestizos. So the concern should not be with these earlier CIA figures. BTW, even those earlied CIA figures a a bit conservative (Argentines who are discernably mestizo would be closer to 18 out of every 100 argentines).

The concern in fact lies with the data that states 97% white and only 3% non-white (ie. mestizo, amerindian) because they do not coincide with common perceptions of the country's true ethnic distribution. Independant of this, the fact that the CIA's current 97% "estimate" conficts with its own ealier estimate provided only a couple of years earlier (and greatly so, 15% down to 3% is no small margin) should be reason enough to make it a questionable source that shouldn't be used, for the sake of accuracy and verifiability.

Having said all that, at the end of it, both earlier and latter CIA figures state that Argentina had a white majority. If you really don't wanna use the 85% figure (which was originally cited by the CIA, agreed by Argentine institutions, and is the figure that most cloesly comes to reflecting the reailty as percieved by actually being in Argentina) then basically all the article should say is that Argentina has a white majority, and leave it at that without a figure being given. The problem is really only the citation of 97% in the actual article. Al-Andalus 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's great the way the large Arab community, that even President Menem was a member of, is constantly deleted from the demographics section. And it is sited that figures from Islam in Argentina disputes the numbers of Arabs in Argentina. Not all Arabs are Muslims, especially the Arabs in Argentina, 70% of which are said to be Christians.

It's awesome that I took it out, actually, because unless you find a creditable source to back up what you say, it's considered Original Research and doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. Pl ease find a source or stop adding it to the article. Argentina has a "Good Article" status, let's try to keep it that way. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: And if you bothered to read the article I pointed you to, you'll see that the fact that not arabs are muslims is very clearly outlined in there. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove the 3%-15% mestizo thing the more accurate rating is the 3 precent because the northerneast provinces are lowly populated. Al-Andalus calm down too you always try to stress your points way too much and it is clear there is some sort of biast behind them. Also you are comepletly wrong about the source not being creitable, It is very creitable. This is not the article that states that the Q3 (M3) is not solely found in Native Americans research done above by others also verify the vadilitly of the Indigenous Peoples Council article. It still stands. Also the gene the Clarin.com article is talking is also mentioned in Coldheartedman source [2]. Which shows it can also be a European gene also. (24.60.174.79 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Is the One-drop theory the latest K-obsession? What cultural/legislative/healthcare importance does the exact figure from ADN studies have but a scientific one? User:Ejrrjs says What? 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

mestizo minority

Who change the estimation of mestizos from 3 to 15 to 3 to 20 there is any official source woth an estimation of 20%?? I change it again. If you add it please say the source and i won't change it.

21 october 2006

To the person that removed my citation regarding the 15% mestizo minority on the grounds it's 'old' information (because it cited the country as having 33 million people):

I can very very distantly 'accept' your reason for axing my citation (that it's old).

But do you honestly BELIEVE the mestizo population has gone down since then?

Let's be clear, in my opinion your reasons are ulterior, and I'm sorry if I sound like I am casting aspertions, but I am. I will find a CURRENT documented and peer-reviewed source for that number for you. Then, you will have to accept it.

Having an article that says Argentina has a 3% mestizo population as the only quoted citation dilutes credibility to the article, is that what we are trying to do?

If Argentina is 3% mestizo, then I also inherited the Golden Gate Bridge, Big Ben, the Colon Theater and the leaning tower of Pisa. Let's get real folks... The dugout 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You know whats annoying people who try to prove there points like you do... Yeah but that Website is not only old but the government of Argentina reconcizes simular results.... http://www.turismo.gov.ar/eng/menu.htm Your source is a travel site for business. The source you gave are not comparable.

Dude I live in Argentina too... si asi es. No me vas a decir que la población es 97% 'blanca'. Me dicen eso de Islandia y me les río en la cara (por experiencia de mi tio que visitó y dice que ahora casi el 10% son asiaticos de origen 'groenlandes', y hasta algun que otro africano. Esa información de la CIA es ridícula, la misma organización que decia con seguridad que hay bombas atómicas en Irak.

If you want to believe the CIA fine. I'll go with what I see: Argentina is majority white. The dugout 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dugout, as we say, estás gastando pólvora en chimangos. The CIA figure is clearly wrong; they don't explain how they got it, and we have better sources. On the other hand, if we don't know how many mestizos (whatever that means) are in Argentina, then we don't need to give numbers.

Every once in a while there comes an editor who doesn't like the fact that Argentina is part of Latin America, and "debate" ensues. Don't bother. If both good sources and your common sense coincide, just revert to the prior version; if it's been there for a while, it's because it's probably OK. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you two that this issue has been discussed exhaustively on Talk:Demographics of Argentina; everyone, please calm down a bit and respect our consensus, que bastantes dolores de cabeza nos ha dado a todos. =) Cheers, —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I edited the section with the agrrement of all these regular users. Please Dunadan, discuss before edited without consensus:

From the discussion in the Archive 4

I have found an article (and other like it) that prove it is pretty much impossible to prove Native American heritage. http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html

(24.60.161.63 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Please, try to be a little bit more constructive with your comments. The article you provide certanly questions the genetic test to identify Native Americans, and is very interesting. By no means should we ignore such analisys, but perhaps we could keep references to both studies: the genetic research, and its critic. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) The article says that trying to determine NA heritage with mtDNA testing 1) yields many false negatives; 2) yields some false positives. It doesn't say that it's impossible to do it. In fact, when applied to large populations, it probably underestimates the number of people with NA heritage, especially since many of the false positives can be readily discarded by asking the person about its heritage (if they say they have a Samoan or Japanese female ancestor, for example). I think the observation is valuable, but it belongs in the article about genetic testing, not here. In any case one must assume that the scientists who conducted the tests know about these things and didn't just release a raw number without taking them into account. I might also point out that the criticism in question is found in the website of an organization called Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and is written specifically to highlight the problems of native affiliation in the U.S., where people can benefit from affirmative action policies if they can prove they're part of a minority group. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I never said it was impossible, just nearly impossible, sorry about that. Anyways, they have found that many Southern Europeans have these "Markers" and this matchs exactally to Argentina, since many are from Spain and Italy (Southern European countries). So therefore if a vast number of people where surveyed they could yield the results found in the testing. These "markers" would most likely show up in many Argentines since many are of Southern European decent. The "Clarin" article states very clearly what "markers" they used. All this matches the article I posted. The article clearly says many scientist simply just don't enough about these markers and only a few do. The Clarin article does not state that they know about how many people throughout the world share these same "halogroups" or "Markers" and therefore there is no proof that they knew about this. Also The article states for Native Americans testing and they compare to many different kinds of people in the world, so in context you can assume its not just the Native Americans in the US. So I hardly dought that also. Since there were also Native Americans that lived on the boarders of what is now the Canada and Mexico. (24.60.161.63 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm on favour of keeping the genetic test, and adding at its end a comment such as though some scientist disbelieve of such genetic markers test with the corresponding reference: let the reader draw his/her conclusions. Mariano(t/c) 08:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not why? because it hasnt been proven yet 100 why make an article that isnt 100 precent and that has many flaws? I agree that people have a right to make up there mind about opionion subjects the Demographics of Argentina are not this case however. The research reported by Clarin, althought it was professional it's was flawed. No point on adding flawed information or disproven imformation.(24.60.161.63 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Could you tell us where you're getting all these data from? You mentioned only one article, and that's what I criticized. It doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The genetic study must mean something, or else no respected scientist would use it... Also, nothing is 100% certain, but neither is it true that people "have a right to make up their opinion" in every case. We should only present reputable opinions based on good science. Neither you nor I have the credentials to disqualify a scientific study based on our opinions. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Pablo, you have not read the article very carefully it seems, I QUOTE now: "Some of the haplotypes attributed to Native Americans are also found in people from other parts of the world.Å A, B, C, and D are found in North Asia, and X is found in southern Europe and Turkey. In fact, the principal marker of haplotype B is called the "9 base pair deletion," and is found in some Japanese and almost all Samoans. Could they then be classified as genetically Native American?Å These tests cannot even establish with certainty that, for example, someoneªs motherªs motherªs mother was Native American‚they can at best establish a certain probability that this was the case." This makes it very clear. This is also a genetic study so this also must mean something, and yes your genetic study does mean something, but it does not mean that 56 precent of Argentines have Native American hertiage. It most likely means that 56 precent carry this "marker". So it does mean something I am not trying to say it doesn't mean anything. However, it is incorrect. That is all I am saying. Not to put down your Clarin article and make it seem useless but I dont think it belongs in the Argentine Demographics section. I presented this article to show you that it has been proven that Genetic testing for Native Americans is Faultly at best. Also, you say it does not support Native Americans from South America... Really then how come also do testing on Native Americans from South America? They state on there website they are for all Native Americans and have collected there genetical studies also from South American natives. Your right we don't we can only look at the facts, but these are both genetical studys and one clearly gives more detail about why the other is faulty. (24.60.161.63 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Wow! This study is very interesting! This clearly disproves the Clarin.com article, that the way sciencists find Native American Ancestry is still flawed. I would have never known. I agree however, the Genetic study on Clarin.com should not be mentioned as this seems to be a newer study. I can see why such a high precentage of Argentines had the "Marker" as it occurs in Southern Europe,Turkey and Northern Asia. I don't think we should include old imformation on this article. The Demographics of Argentina should be factual not based on opinion of the reader as most sources will tell you.(209.150.51.78 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

I repeat, the paper doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The Clarín article is not "disproved"; the genetic study gives results that must be interpreted. The cited paper is not a newer study, it's just criticism of the method employed to identify Amerindian heritage. In light of the above, I've changed the relevant information in Demographics of Argentina and here. I agree that so much detail could be skipped in this article, though certainly not in the specific Demographics article, so I wouldn't have a problem with removing the mention of the genetic study from Argentina if there's a consensus about it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Okay your right it doesnt say "many" but it does say Southern Europeans do. So just on the merit it must be atleast present to some common degree if they were able to find it in Southern European populations. Which would yield such closely results as 56 precent and not lets say 75 precent or so. Okay I agree about removing the genetic study because it is clearly too unclear if its 100 precent correct or not.

(24.60.161.63 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Very fanicasting Article. It clearly shows there are many flaws in how Scienists prove Ameridian Ancestry. After reviewing the article, I must say to leave out the previous genetical study found at Clarin.com. Thank you. (69.16.84.36 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

As I said before, I also agree with removing the other Genetic Study. There is simply too much against it.(209.150.51.78 02:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. I also think anyone should help from it being put back up again, from those like Al-Andalus, who even Pablo-Flores has had problems with.(DJBenny 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Ehm, I agree with removing the paragraph about the genetic tests, but I'd like to hear from other, long established editors as well. DJBenny, please wait before changing so many tiny bits of the article. I do not agree with the simplistic "97% white"; that's a raw number from the CIA Factbook and really says nothing to the reader. See all the previous (long!) discussion in Talk:Demographics of Argentina. I really really think we should avoid all references to race unless we know what the method is to qualify it (e. g. "97% of Argentinians call themselves 'white'" or "according to CIA agents Mulder and Scully,¹ 97% of Argentinians are phenotypically white"). Then there's the number/percentage of Jews -- what's with that? Please, anybody, bring forth good sources and give your opinion, and then we can change the article. Remember this is a Good Article, so in principle it shouldn't need any of us making major changes. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ¹ Yeah, I know they're FBI, not CIA. I've been thinking in Japanese for the last two hours, so bear with me. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about this I mean I understand it gives it says nothing to reader, but however all the other Nation pages are like this. Okay how about something like "97 precent of Argentines are of European decent or so" . I can Understand your position though. It did anger me however, that Germans weren't even considered on the top 3. We all know as Argentines,Pablo-Flores, that Germans in Argentina are not all uncommon, in fact they are very common. The 2 precent Jewish estaminate comes from the CIA world fact book and is already a part of the Demographics of Argentina page so I just put that there instead of having the articles saying two different things. I hope your not critizing me for putting bogus stuff up this was all from the previous Argentina page with the exception to the 2 precent Jewish estimate. I am sorry if my changes were very drastic, however Al-Andalus changed much and did the same and if I remember correctly you weren't to happy with it either. haha its okay I have had those days myself =P (DJBenny 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Because of the possible errors in Clarin, i agree to delete. Now: someone changed "Himno Nacional Argentino" for "Marcha de la Patria", a name that has not been used for decades so I think i'll deletre that now. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Me being happy or unhappy about something is not the issue (I don't own this article) but whether the source is good and other editors agree (I mean especially those at WP:AR, who've been around for a while). I don't know how numerous German-descended people are; I think there are many but I don't have a number. According to the sources of Immigration in Argentina, in the period 1895-1947 there were more immigrants from Poland, Russia and France than from Germany. Placing Germany next to Spain and Italy suggests a very large contribution from Germany, which is not the case (and this is common public knowledge). I've just tidied up the article. You tell me what it looks like. It mentions the 97%, even though I still think it doesn't mean nothing (the CIA doesn't explain what it means, though it does say that "white" is considered an ethnic group, but see the problems with the term white). The Clarín ref is gone. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad to see a conclusionm. I would have to disagree with you on that one Pablo Germans have been a very important group moving to Argentina however most of them came after world war II so that be from 1945 all the way from 1955 around there. Even though we can not find an number of people who are German we know from our "common Argentine exprience" Germans are very common in Argentina. Many of the numbers I found were to varied so I really don't trust them. I found this one article: http://www.geographia.com/argentina/buenosaires/Index.htm saying that Italian and German names today outnumber Spanish names. So Germans must be, and I know just from living in Argentina pratically all my life that finding out Argentines with a German Ancestry. Also remember to be "German" back in 1800's and early 1900's was a very loose term most of since many Volga Germans came from Russia, which made up the bulk of Russian immigration to Argentina during the 1800's and early 1900's. Also from the Austrian-Hungrian Empire which much of there resident were also German. The reason I put German as the thrid because I feel that it is part of the "big three" for say obviously Italians and Spaniards are more. Tell me Pablo-Flores How is it learning Japanese?(DJBenny 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Dunadan YOU KEEP EDITING DATA THAT WAS REMOVED WITH THE CONSENSUS OF MANY USERS (and all the users woking regularly in this article) without consensus:

Why does the Demographics section start with the genetic research? It sounds illogical. The Genetical research should be a Nevertheless to the Argentina’s population is primarily of European extraction and not the other way around. Also, I thikn it would be best to leave this topics in a compact version for the Argentina article, to be expanded in the Demographics article, and not having several paragraphs duplicated!!!! Mariano(t/c) 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'll start rewording it. Al-Andalus 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mariano; as stated before, the main information must be on Demographics of Argentina. --Darklegions 06:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE IN DISAGRREMENT WITH THE MAJORITY (as you can see in your post below), I'm going to ask for protection again, if you don't at least discuss with the users that agreed with delete the article because it wasn't relevant and it had several critics:

Ethnicity is a very complicated issue, and I happen to disagree with the result of this discussion. For starters, demographic statistics are not perfect, and are based on people's responses. The census in Argentina, in terms of ethnicity, was based simply on self-ascription: that is, they asked the individuals whether they consider themselves Mestizo, Amerindian or of European ancestry. Needless to say, very few individuals self-ascribe as Mestizo and Amerindian. Genetic studies and their finding reports, which suggest a 56% of the population with some Amerindian ancestry, are blatantly ignored in this article, even though they are included in es:Argentina and es:Composición étnica de Argentina, all properly referenced, which suggests the information presented here in the English Wikipedia is bordering on WP:POV. If this is a contentious issue that is discussed ad nauseum, then I propose that we Request for Arbitration so that all arguments, fully referenced, are presented to stand scrutiny by external editors to suggest and unbiased conclusion in this particular matter. --the Dúnadan 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, This hasn't been an issue for a while. But thanks for your help. XGustaX 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an issue, because I disagree with the solution that has been imposed so far. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dúnadan. This article has been POV for far too long. Mariokempes 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Well, then I am Requesting for Arbitration. I will let you know about the process, and how every concerned editor can participate. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

190.16.28.25 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)snowhite1985190.16.28.25 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edition WHAT DOES A GENETIC STUDY OF ONLY 10 PROVINCES OUT OF 24 in the country about some distant native american ancestry has to do with demographics???? Norwegians have a 2% of african admixture is this important at all??? I doubt it....

190.16.31.79 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Marie190.16.31.79 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics section

An anon user was moving things around here and I reverted the change. Have a look at the history and see if you want to leave a comment here. I am quite happy with the section as it is, I think. --Guinnog 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a sizable Black population in Argentina? I know in the past there was a large population outnumbering whites. Were they affected by assimilation? From "whitening" the population (that is encouraging European immigration for "development")? Or were they annihilated by the Argentine government (which wouldn't surprise me)?

There used to be a small black population in Argentina, which has now virtually disappeared. It is absolutely inaccurate that there ever was a large enough black population in the country that outnumbered non-blacks. As in the rest of the continent Arfican blacks were brought in as slaves but in much smaller numbers than in other countries in the region. Initially there was a majority of natives; those populations were indeed decimated by disease, slavery and massacres. As late as the mid- to late-19th century there were "campañas al desierto," state-organized military expeditions to the south (Patagonia) to take land and eliminate natives. Corto 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question(s). Whether or not Argentina had a small or large Black population, the fact is they had a population nonetheless. How did they virtually disappear? Miscegenation or conspiracy?

There was no Conspiracy. They disappeared because they lived in plagued areas of the cities in Argentina and died by the thousands, which led them to dissapear, to pretty much disspeared. So he did answer your question they disspeared much like the Natives did. So yeah like you said before your right.

Argentina never had a large black population because it never needed the workforce. Slaves were used in plantations, mines, all things that do not exist in the central territory. In the north, there was native population that was force to work in mitas. So, they were reduced to work in houses as personal service staff, never in a large number. Also, the independence army used them a lot as a cannon fodder, because the survivors were granted with the liberty. Rosas did the same in 1830. When, in 1853, the slavery was abolished, the presence of black people was minimal. Then, in the war of the Triple Alliance they were conscripted with gauchos, beggars and criminals and fought in frontline regiments. Few survived the war, and most of them died in the yellow fever epidemic of 1860. BorisDelMas 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing some reading I found that there was a sizable population of blacks in Argentina during the 19th century. I found that during the Rosas´ rule 30% of the population was black (which mean 1 out 2 was black! that seem pretty important to me). Although it varied through out the country sometimes even reaching 50% in the northeast(Catamarca)!. Also there was a need in work force since Argentina was a colony, blacks worked in mining and agriculture (cattle); they were also used in domestic labor (servants). As for the disappearing, there aren't many documents about it, but many theories try to explain this event. Most historians agree that blacks were forced to enlist in the military and they were send to the battle front, usually used as shields. Also since slaves were expensive to keep, especially the ones working in houses, enjoyed a high standard of living (compare to other slaves), when they were freed, they didn't have any resources to make a living so many just died of hunger or sickness (yellow fever epidemic of 1860). Other part of the population they mixed with the Europeans, thus giving birth to the "gaucho" culture as well as the tango and milonga (which in the 19th century was though to be a dance for the low class)here is the link I found most of the info, this a government site, so i think is a good reference. (its in Spanish,) link I think that blacks were very important in the early culture of Argentina, and many ppl diminish how much importance they had in the construction of the country and identity of Argentinians, but thats just an opinion, some ppl say that we cant talk about the blacks disappearing, because the fact that some little mixture remains in some of the population; especially those families that have been living in the country for a longer time Ckill 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Source fails to say what you have stated especially since Blacks where never a very large group in Argentina to begin with as it already discuss. Futhermore this mixing you talk about is minimal since studies show only 2-5 precent of Argentines have some African Lineage. Tango also has been proven to not have African influence( and it quiet obvious it doesn't) Since the word Tango also existed back then in Spanish. To me it seems this source is undependable. The Guacho Culture was not purely based on Black-Argentines, The Spaniards were the ones who introduced the whole ""cowboy"" way of living to the new world, so thats another thing that is your wrong with your statement. Also, It is true that Blacks dissapeared, all you have to do is look at Argentines and studies done.(XGustaX 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

So wait your saying that 30% percent is not a large population, of course this in percentage, the total population of Argentina we indeed very minimal, i do i greed with that; but we cant denied that there a was a population, which in numbers may not have been very big compare to colonial country, but they were a sensitive part of the population. I don't argue with the fact that there is only 2-5 percent of African linear, since i said "the fact that some little mixture remains in some of the population", i never said BIG, i said little. Tango does have some black influence, as well as indian influence, but i would not call it major influence because Argentina was a melt paint for many cultures.Here is a source if you doubt me link, source states that the dance that this blacks, Indians, gauchos, sailers and mulatons dance was not per say tango, but it became the base by which it was developed, thus my point is proven, there was an influence. Saying that the word is Spanish origin doest prove anything, they named it that, because everybody spoke Spanish. You said that it obvious that it does not have influence, thats is a presumption statement, (so because they not dancing samba and playing the drum they are not black???!) and i think is wrong to assume things which we clearly none of use are experts, we as writers should always keep an open mind. Well you are right though that gaucho is not purely base on blacks argentine, but it would be wrong to deny their influence. The previews source (link) states that although the diminution of the black population is very real, it would be illegitimate to talk about blacks disappearing, since there been a clear influence in politician and society discussion, and that there have been a project during the 1890s to whiten the Argentinine population. One more thing, next time plz put some refences, so i can see from where your are supporting your arguments. thx Ckill 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For one your 30 precent figure is completely mistaken it was at the very max. 10 precent.[3] So based on that your sources are flawed. Try to get Offical sources that know about what they are talking about It Tango has been proven to have no African, Especially no Indian influence since most of the Indians were killed.[4]. Tourism websites are not authoratative sources and we do not use them here. The article states that some Guachos were Mulattos then again this does not mean they influenced the Gaucho way of life especially since most of that life style comes from Spanish. You say that the disappearance of blacks is very real then again it it isn't? You cannot flip flop one way or another since your already flawed sources talk of no such ""clear influences"" since most were killed off! Your sources are flawed I would like you to find sources that are actually authoratative.(XGustaX 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I have found several source that support many of my points: here they are 1 this an article from the washington post, 2, 3 This is the previews source that i posted, this source was written by Miriam Victoria Gomes who is a professor of the university of buenos aires (Integrante de la Sociedad Caboverdiana; de la Cátedra Abierta de Estudios Americanistas (UBA) y de la Unión de Mujeres Afrodescendientes de la República Argentina.) this the full title, so i guess my source is pretty revelant since it was written by an expert in the field, i didn't not know this when i first posted the source. If you check at the button of the page there is also a bibliography of where she is supporting her argument,4 Written by Lucía Dominga Molina, founder of Casa de la Cultura Indo-Afro-Americana., 5 an argentine journalist., in regard of thango, 6 this a long interview with Robert Farris Thompson (Professor Thompson is Colonel John Trumbull Professor of the History of Art at Yale University), this a a reviews of thomsons book, it says some of his arguments 7, I dont have to time now to look for more in depth resource about tango, but ill go on posting them as i find them. Tell what you think about my resouces. Ckill 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Afro-Argentines never made up a huge amount like Brazil which you seem to be comparing it to. All your sources even say the same thing. We have discussed the World bank source it was a survey which is completely different. Your other sources are deff. lacking I would have agree. I mean the second one was almost purely based on factual oppion. You Keep trying to give us information of the history of Argentina before its great immigration and we know all that. Even though your sources are either incorrect or just based on peoples historical opinions on the subject. That is proabably what they mean, since that has also already been discussed. It was thought that Tango had African roots because of its name but now it is no the word Tango existed in Spanish before. (24.60.175.168 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Your last source states nothing about what you claim. Addition He is right we have already discussed the World Bank survey and its just that a Survey, nothing Scientific about it. What I told you before about the genetics was the scientfic finds and all your sources state the same time after time. That Afro-Argentines have almost completely dissapeared althought. Apparently they don't know what they are talking about because they are contridicting what most sources say of Afro-Argentines. Most Africans in the those provinces they speak about were there for a short time and then sold up north to Peru they never stayed long in Argentina. That is why there were never large numbers. I don't get why you keep citing sources like this. If you look above in the conversations they explain all about Afro-Argentines. Most were killed off and this fact is well known Ckill. I have to agree with the user above your about your sources even the Washington post they have some errorous information since many have proven that Africans died by the thousands in the Paraguayan war and the Yellow fever that struck Argentina in 1870s. They all either don't state what you say or are based on opinons of the author. (XGustaX 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

yeah i do agree that now at days afro-argentine are a minimal group, i guess i was trying to prove their importance in the past. Anyway i agree with that some of the sources are bases on on opions. I still have a doubts, all of my sources states that there was about a 30% percent of afros in argentina in 1810, other claim it was 30% in buenos aires; but you claim is 10%, which one is it?.Thx for the discussion it has been very helpful to me to learn a lil about wikipedia since im new to these. 201.81.37.164 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's no Problem I am glad you learned something. I am glad also. Yeah thats something you learn I guess. I am glad to meet you take care. If you have any more questions feel free to message me. Have a good one.(XGustaX 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Who's playing with the demographics section? / Who change the major ethnic Spanish groups

Someone change the demograohics sections with incorrect information again. Pablo you are the one that keep this articles so well written could you ask for protection against vandalism???.

Someone deleted the info of Galicians Basque and Catalans being the most important ethnic Spanish groups in the country. Who could do that? I changed it again. I think we don't even need sources about that fact do we? Go to the Basque Argentinian official site 10% of the population is Basuqe!! and 80% of the Spanish immigration in the 20th century was Galician!. God! WHo change that?? It couldn't be n Argentinian who pass primary school god!!. I hate people without sources and reliable information who change data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.16.20.183 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 November 2006.

I moved your comments down here and signed them for you. Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, and sign them using four tildes (Chaosdruid (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)) so we can keep track of who is saying what and when.

There are many people working to keep this article well-written, not just me, but most of us also have other things to do. It's important that wrong data added to the article can be spotted quickly and removed. The best way to do this, when the data is clearly not correct, is by reverting (see Help:Reverting).

The demographics section of this article has been a problem since... ever. At least on my watch, anything edited in that section and others without a good justification will be reverted as soon as I spot it; but I'm not watching all the time. I could protect the page, but this is not vandalism, it's simply people altering an article to reflect what they believe is true, without taking the time and effort to check the facts. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to revert the text when i see changes. But i've seen how many problems we have had with that section and i like the way it is now. It couldn't be beter and more precise and accurate than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.226.252 (talk • contribs).

Problem with Argentina 97% white figure

A couple of times I have tried to clarify the laughably inaccurate statistic of Argentina being "97% white". However, people keep reverting it back to showing it as fact.

People apparently don't seem to realize that the 97% white figure comes from the CIA Factbook, which can be very inaccurate when it comes to reporting percentages of ethnic groups in populations, especially when they are not reported by the country's government. In fact, a previous edition of the CIA Factbook (copied verbatim here: [1]) said that Argentina was 85% white and 15% mestizo. I have personally met several Argentines who consider themselves Mestizo; one was from Jujuy in the far northwest. In addition, there are large numbers of Mestizos and Indians from Paraguay and Bolivia living in the Buenos Aires area; Argentines say that Buenos Aires is now the largest Paraguayan city in the world.

The United States, meanwhile, is reported in the Factbook as "white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)". It leaves out all mention of the fact that most Hispanics are mestizo, and assumes they're all white. Thus, we have the absurd situation where Guatemalan Maya who live in the U.S. are called "white" by the CIA Factbook. Bottom line: the CIA Factbook is very slipshod when it comes to accuracy, and I do not know how they got the 97% figure or why, and we should use the older 85% figure. BGManofID 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to have some other sources.--Mariano(t/c) 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the CIA Factbook either, but as long as we identify the source, it's OK to quote the figure. If we remove the CIA Factbook we'll have a serious content dispute. I'd rather use INDEC figures and other studies, but someone will add the CIA Factbook again. As for "large numbers of Mestizos and Indians from Paraguay and Bolivia living in the Buenos Aires area", I remember I quoted the numbers somewhere; there are less than 500,000 Paraguayans in the whole Capital + Greater Buenos Aires area, and less than 250,000 Bolivians, as of 2003, according to official sources. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we have to definite what is a white person BorisDelMas 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are are wrong I am sorry to say. The Offical census of Argentina DID conclude that Argentina is around 97 precent white.[2] That census you speak of was either an Estimate or not from the government of Argentina. If the CIA world fact book is so wrong why did the cite that Argentina was 85 precent in previous editions of the CIA world fact book? Pablo is right about your large numbers statement which is clearly an Opinion you have. So again I am sorry to say you are wrong I am taking the tag off because we have CLEAR edvience and just lay this issue to rest. There is no reason to Hate the CIA world fact book because its a VERY dependable source that is clearly based on research and not what the US thinks is "white" as you mean to put it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.175.168 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 February 2007.

Unfortunately INDEC cannot be trusted anymore —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Several things: We don't get to define. We must quote the figures and the sources (and the method used, if possible) and those things only. I believe that the CIA data are based on self-assumption of ethnic belonging, as in the US census I've heard (you're presented with several choices of "race" and you choose which "race" you belong to). Given that it's not strange that 97% of Argentinians call themselves "white" — for the general population, "mestizo" and "aboriginal" have been insults since the Spaniards first came. www.turismo.gov.ar doesn't cite the source of the "95% white" claim (note it says 95%, not 97%). The national census does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT ask for ethnic/racial identification. INDEC is indeed trustable. The unsubtle political manipulations of the last weeks should not taint its reputation. The fact has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the opposition, and moreover, inflation figures have nothing to do with the data of the 2001 census.

—Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

INDEC is VERY DEPENDABLE, Argentino. Pablo is right lets not get carried away. Just because they don't cite the source doesn't mean its not real. They must have taken it from the census which was done in 2001 as you know. This 85 precent figure also doesnt cite its source and I don't see anyone questioning its source. Even though you right that they have been insults its a general fact we know of the immigration to Argentina and its history so its easy to conclude that this figure is correct. Also Pablo if the National census does not ask for Racial/ethnic indenitfication how did this Magical 85 precent figure pop up? [00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]

Common people keep looking, you just need to find the right source, it's obvious that Argentina is not 97% white, you just need to visit the country to look it up for yourself. It's impossible that Bolivia that is right above Argentina has almost a full indigenous population and that Argentina has none. It’s ridiculous. The north of Argentina has a lot of indigenous peoples, but of course the government doesn't count them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.218.100 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Your statement is flawed because those natives are so few compared to the total population. So it does make sense if you think in numbers and not how people look in one area. You have to look at the total Argentine population and for that the gran majority are White. Anyone should know this when looking at demographics! What does Bolivia have to do with Argentina? (24.60.175.168 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

What an idiot. What does Bolivia being above Argentina have anything to do with it's demographics? With that logic that means that just because Uruguay is close by Argentina is even whiter? please. Anyone visiting Argentina your right would see the country is Overwhelming of European decent no question about it. You are being too general only a few Isoilated places in Argentina have still Natives they are so few compared to the population of the rest of the country as the census says, only 400,000 comon. You need to get your logic strait. As for your mistrust in the CIA world fact book if you visit the FAQ section it states: ""What is The World Factbook’s source for a specific subject field? The Factbook staff uses many different sources to publish what we judge are the most reliable and consistent data for any particular category. Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources.""[3] so they obviously found this figure in various places as they state in there Policies and Procedures section of there Frequently Asked Questions. (XGustaX 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Most sources claim that Europeans make up 97% of the population, while grouping the remaining 3% are mestizo and indigenous. However, many claim these numbers distort reality. The Human Rights Documentation Center prepared a paper entitled “Racial Discrimination: The Record of Argentina” 4. If you read this, you would probably agree that the figures are more likely around 85% white, 12% mestizo, and 3% indigenous. The document makes a critical point- The official figures may overestimate the white population, but they certainly reflect the normative perception that the country is predominantly white. Mariokempes 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Argentina is deff. overwhemlingly white. The article doesn't mention what you state. Since the indigenous population in the census only came up about 1 precent so you seem to overstate it. I would say Argentina is over 90 White. It is no dought that it is overwhelmingly white more then 90 precent most likely.(24.60.175.168 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

come on Argentinians don't be rude you know that brazil has much more people from european decendents than Argentina has and we only count 60% white in our census. stop being racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.195.85 (talk • contribs)

I AGREE. IN BRAZIL YOU FIND MANY MORE EUROPEN DECENDENTS THAN ARGENTINA AND THEY DONT CALL THEMSELVES A 97% WHITE NATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.195.85 (talk • contribs)

This guy talking to himself really made me laugh. In any case, Brazil having a higher percent of white inhabitants is more than arguable. I also find the 97% too high, but some sources point to that. It would be good though to have some other source to place the number between this and that. --Mariano(t/c) 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did! He is also totally wrong. Brazil having more white people then Argentina! As for the 97 precent figure,its around there more or less. As for citing between this and that , this type of citing is great for certain things Mariano but not for everything. Besides, we have included estimates in the minority section. Thank You.(XGustaX 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

Although Argentina has a larger PERCENTAGE of whites than Brazil, Brazil clearly has a larger NUMBER of whites. Example, apx 25-28 Million Brazilians are of Italian decent, Argentina has a population total of 40 Million. The number of Italians in Brazil is only ONE of the many european ethnic groups that immigrated to Brazil. Argentina has a larger percentage of whites, but Brazil CLEARLY has a larger NUMBER of citizens of European ancestry.

what are you guys talking about Brazil in the Argentine's page??

Most sources report Argentina's population as 97 per cent white (mostly of Spanish and Italian descent) and three percent mestizo (Amerindian' and European), Amerindian, or other nonwhite groups. One of the difficulties in assessing and addressing persistent forms of racial discrimination in Argentina is the lack of adequate information about the population, particularly the indigenous and immigrant communities. The national census scheduled for 2000 was postponed due to lack of funds. Historically, national census data has been collected using the category of national origin rather than race in Argentina, leading to undercounting Afro-Argentines and mestizos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cia figures never lie ;) 97% sounds just about right to me. Irrer 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god!!Everytime that one of this guys from central or nother south america comes out!! they have some big issues....

As for the Argentinian site, we discussed our site for over three years and we use the most official sources. And that's all, besides most not whites in Argentina are the new immigrants. Could you please stop the vandalism?.

The Americans decided used the most realiable sources which are the ones of the census, so with did. Americans decided let alone any individual and polemic study 8as the one that some of you mention but there is a new one that said that genetically the population is 90% european which is pretty much like the official numbers. The same happen with some American studies.

The 90% figure is the one of the official census, govermment and the international numbers. And it sounds ok, for me and I live in Argentina, so please stop with you vandalism. Or I'll start add irrelevant facts in the brazilian, venezuelan (btw, the venezuelan even changes the official dates according to her/his piacere!!! ) and chilean sites, just because i'm boring.

Why don't you worry about your section. WE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Argentinas black population

Why is it not mention in this article. There are 2 million black argentinans. "Hay casi dos millones de afrodescendientes en el país Miriam Gomes, vicepresidenta de la Sociedad Caboverdeana Argentina " He is say there are two million blacks in the country http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/specials/2007/esclavitud/newsid_6455000/6455537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dualldual (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

He says there are 2 million afrodescendientes in the country, meaning "of African descent". I don't know why this hasn't shown up in the data, perhaps the people have only a small amount of black ancestry, or otherwise don't consider themselves black.--Cúchullain t/c 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Cichullain. There is no mention of this in the article becuase genetic tests suggest this was overstated estimate. Genetic tests say that 2 precent of Argentines have at least one African descent most of these had a a small amount of black ancestry, less than 10 percent.

Thank you.

Hope it answers your questions,(XGustaX 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Would you mind presenting the genetic test so that we can all see it? I'd also like to ask how you used a genetic test to prove race? From my understanding there are genetic markers that can be used but they can indicate very little about your race. For example you could go back 10 generations but if your fathers father father 10 generations ago was white and your mothers mother mother was white genetic testing will tell you that your 100% white even if your extremely black because all of your other ancestors were pur africans. Well for us to say why it is not in other data would be original research unless we can find some article explaining why it is not in there. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy of at least a mention even it is only a sentence in the article.

I would also be interested in hearing about this genetic test. I'm all for including the info on African descent in Argentina, but it looks like they don't consider themselves a separate ethnic group. If you want to include the info, you should find a source in English (Wikipedia:Attribution#Language) if possible; this is the English Wikipedia after all. Also be sure to be clear in your wording; saying 2% of Argentinians have black ancestors is different than saying 2% of Argentina is black. Saying otherwise comes treacherously close to the one-drop theory.--Cúchullain t/c 06:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are hardly any Argentines of African Descent, this is a well known fact in Argentina. You are right, see out of that 2 precent most had only a 10 percent contriubtion. See that 5 precent figure was based on a survey. Since, many people mistake claim false descentants like in the US it is not terribly realible since this was not a census. Especially since the last census taken to find the population of black Argentines or some with them it revealed only 2 percent of Argentines had at atleast a black ancestor. This actually makes sense because the genetic tests match up exactally. To say 2 percent of Argentines are black this is not the case what so ever. We did not to put that in simply because too say that would be too close to the one drop theory, you are right Cuchullain. It is well known to Argentines that there were Africans however, Africans are now pretty much gone. The genetic study proves this on how Africans dissapeared.

Thank You.

Hope it answers your question(XGustaX 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Hey xgustax what do you think about your neighbour Brazil? please answer me ASAP. many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.195.85 (talk • contribs)

Wrong information. I don't know who told you that there are 2 million black argentinians. The black people in this country is less than 1% according to the census. The country has around 40 million people, so do the math. Also, the majority of those black people, were not born in argentina, but in Brazil or Uruguay or another country. In fact, I have never ever know any black person or heard of any black person that was born in Argentina. And I have known a lot of people in my life.

Buenos Aires had a huge population of black people in 18 and 19 century (slaves). But 90% of them were sent to the war with Paraguay, and died there. The remaninning of them, decided to emigrate to Brazil or Uruguay. That's why you hardly see any black citizen in the streets of any city of Argentina.

Ale2007 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its wrong information, your absolutely right. Everything you said is true. When you see a black person in Argentina, although it is very rare I might add, as everyone has put above, they are not from Argentina, but foriegn to the country.(SouthJames 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Indigenous population

I've just updated the figures and quoted the official source (an INDEC press release of June 29, 2006). Please take into account that the "Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas" is still in process, therefore the figure could be a little higher. --Cinabrium 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The indigenous population should be prioritized in the Minority section. Irrer 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Why does someone insist on reverting the edits to this section without substantiation? What is wrong with the statement that Argentina's white population "may be as high as 97%" depending on the source? In reality we all know it is lower- probably around 90%. Look at the facts... there are 3% indigenous and at least as many mestizo (possibly as high as 10%). It is still mostly "white" and "european". Also, no, Chile is not overwhelmingly "white" as someone keeps insisting- it is overwhelmingly mestizo. And again, what is wrong with that??? Mariokempes 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you are wrong. See Natives only make up 1 percent,from the census, as we have already discussed so you are not correct, therefore that why we have changed it, becuase you are not right. As for Chile I will remove that. Thank You. Hope it answers your question.(XGustaX 23:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

XGustaX, mind the tone of your answers. You are only seeing the figures of sources you choose to see, ignoring the rest. The number of white people in Argentina is not all that clear, and that situation must be reflected in the article. --Mariano(t/c) 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No I am not Mariano. His source says that Argentina is 3% indigenous and the census says its only 1 precent so the the source is flawed and just plain incorrect, it clearly overstates the population. This a classic case proving that all sources are not created equally. Why use faulty and clearly incorrect information that contridicts the Argentine indigenous Census? That is my point. It already is relflect in the article with in the mintority section. We have discussed this many times with Pablo and everyone who contributes here. So do not tell me about seeing only sources I choose, You have no right. Because I have my clear and reasonable reasons. (XGustaX 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

You should be nicer. However, I do not think he is only looking at the sources he chooses, since it is true what he says the figures seem to be and actually are overstated.

XGustaX.... I apologize. I didn't realize you had a monopoly on the encyclopedic facts presented in this article. Why did you you revert my unbiased improvements to the demography section? I didn't change anything other than improve the English- which now again looks like a high school student paper and not an encyclopedia. I also cleared up some misleading statements- which are now back in glorious, matter-of-fact form. What's up??? Mariokempes 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbias putting ""white"" like this is not bias? comon. I am going to ingore your pointless and totally rude comment you just said to me. So whatever, just don't say it was totally unbaised because it wasn't because you sure fooled me.(XGustaX 03:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

I was rude... and for that I apologize. As for "white", that is the term your own reference uses. This is not the same as European. White includes arabs, which according to the article make up about 3% of the population. Arabs are not European, so if you want to say European, the total is 94%. This is also debateable since there is the issue of the terminology used in the Argentine census- as Pablo clearly and eloquently stated above. As for the other changes- I was only improving the English and intent. For example, you really mean "most" other Latin American countries, not "many". People go "to" a place, not "in" a place. If you revisit what I did, you will see that I didn't really change anything other than make it more like an encyclopedia and less like a series of casual comments. Some statements need a reference, so I added a tag... I didn't delete the comment. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but Wikipedia is a collective medium, and I didn't appreciate the immediate reverts (to what are truly only improvements on what was already there) without at least some meaningful discussion. Mariokempes 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not say that 3 precent of Argentina is Arab, that sounds way to high. Where did you get this, because it is not in the article. As far as Pablo "making it clear" what he was saying that there was no clear census on the white population of Argentina but on Natives and other non-white groups there have been. So to say that the "issue of Terminaology" was used is not the case. So I am sorry to say you are indeed wrong on that. (24.60.175.168 05:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, he is right the census does make clear of those. I mean thats how we got the Idigenious peoples census threw the Argentine Census. But Yeah Arab Immigration was pretty low in Argentina so they are minimal group. Especially since most Argentines make a clear distinction between being White and Arab, so that is simply not the case. As for the corrections in grammar you are right they should be fixed.(XGustaX 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The article clearly says there are 1m levantine arab speakers (under the languages heading) and this is supported by a reference to Ethnologue. That makes 3% (OK, actually 2.6 or so). I am pretty sure these arab speakers are not ethnic Spaniards or Italians. As for what Pablo was saying, I think you need to re-read his statements. Also, don't "brush off" what I said as just grammar. It's also about being clear and not providing misleading information. If this article is to become a serious reference, it needs to be completely unbiased. To conclude, I am pretty sure the last two posts are by the same person... I will no longer contribute from hereon. Mariokempes 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No way there are that many Arabic speakers in Argentina. That is just proabably one person estimate. But I dont believe it. (64.132.0.250 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Please, stop being being rude here we do not allow it. We do not do this hear and if you are accussing me of doing that then you should not contribute here because you clearly show no respect to other users. In addition, using unathourative sources will not get you far hear. I have looked at your other edits and have found simular problems with your "arguments" like about Silician and the Italian influence on it. We highly dought the 1 million Arabic speakers source for many reasons. One being that they say only 1.5 million Argentines speak Italian. That is just silly knowning that 60 precent of Argentines are Italian origen and very very few about 600,000 are Arabic. Arabic immigration was small. According to a National survey done in Argentina to the languages Argentines speak, Arabic was not even on this list. So we highly dought it althought we do mention that some do tend to think like that. So please stop right there. I also known about my own country and its census so it was clear to misread what Pablo said. I know what Pablo says and I have talked to him many times. As Mariano put it, we do not have a 100 precent accurate figure on the white population of Argentina, but other groups we do for most part. So please do not bother contriuting if you are going to accuse me of wrong doing and treat people rudly.(XGustaX 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Dear XGustaX, 64.132.0.250, and 24.60.175.168: I really don't know where you are coming from... First, I was no longer rude (although you really test me!). Second, Ethnologue is hardly an unauthoritative source. Third, you obviously have a personal agenda (and it's not well hidden, I might add). I'm going to kick myself for saying this, but... let's assume the number of ethnic arabs in Argentina is "only" 600,000 (as you suggest; the source still maintains over 1m), that is still a huge amount and it still represents 2% of the "white" population. Anyways, I already told you I will no longer contribute to the article, and from now on I will stay away from the Talk page as well. This is really not worth the effort. Mariokempes 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Learn to do Math Buddy. That is 1.5 that is not a huge amount! You seem to be the one with the agenda here always imposing your views on others most people would agree with me when I say the Arab community is very small indeed. So stop being rude to me and other users or else. If it is not worth the effort then leave. No one wishes to deal with people like you. If that is the case then why have the underestaimated the Italian language speakers in Argentina compared to surevy which puts the Italian speaking population to 6.9 precent! While Ethnologue says its only 1,500,000. Please.(XGustaX 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

OK, I can't help myself. If Wikipedia is going to become everything that it should, we cannot let ourselves be stifled by indifference... Los Medios y Mercados de Latinoamérica published the following for Argentina in 1998: White 89%, Black 0%, Indigenous 1%, Mulatto 1%, Mestizo 6%, Asian 0%, Don't Know 4% (the 0%, by the way, is not absolute). see 5 This doesn't even consider what is "white" for, as I said above, white does not mean European! The point I wish to make is there are many different viewpoints relating to the ethnic composition of Argentina, and this needs to be reflected in the article. I welcome meaningful insight and debate before I make any changes to the article! Mariokempes 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario it is 95 precent cut the crap! This is the from the offical Argentine census Ok[6] your source is unoffical and as it says "If we cannot let people classify themselves, then the alternative is to let others do it. The Los Medios y Mercados de Latinoamérica study is a pan-Latin American survey in which interviewers are sent to interview a representative sample of people in their homes. As part of the interviewing process, the interviewer is required to classify the respondents into one (and only one) of seven racial categories: white, black, indigenous, mulatto, mestizo, asian and "Don't know"."

What does this reveal? That is this completely unathourative compared to offical census. I am come on! Did you even read this this mario? It was a Survey done by people from these countries. So you've got to be kidding me! You want me to speak to you like this I will because you are just pushing it! Stop pressing this further most people disagree with you. You have to assume good faith because right now and from what I can see from your edits you are not! Stop being a stubborn bastard about it and if you don't like the facts don't come here anymore.(XGustaX 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Why do you keep doing this. Just give it a break and stop being so rude to other users. (71.174.112.24 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Why are you so rude to other users on here. You come here citing totally unathouratative sources compared to what we have. You need to stop pushing your POV down our throats Just end it as they say, enough is enough. The reason Wikipedia is NOT a reiable source and i believe it will never be is because people like you cite these kind of sources. Rather then citing these kind of unathouratative sources, why not cite offical government sources and other encylopedic sources for example Encarta, which is what we have done.(24.60.175.168 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

XGustaX... Look, I know we started off on the wrong foot and I don't know why you are being so rigid (and bitter). All I am saying is that there are varying opinions by authoritative entities on this point. OK, you cite the census, but as pointed out by others on these pages, it too has some problems. What is wrong with saying "Argentina's white population may be as high as 97% depending on the source"? This is more accurate. This does not imply you are wrong, only that there is some room for reputable opinion. I don't understand why this ruffles you feathers!! Even Europe is no longer 97% European. I'd like to hear from others on this (XGusta- there is another aspect to this discussion on your Talk page). Mariokempes 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. but it is because if you look 95 precent are European and another 5 precent are Mestizo or Other. My point is that is NOT by any means an authritative source. You dont need to have an opinion to find out if this is athouratative or not. If you read above other users agree with me. I mean you cant count a survey dont by a third party no were near the offical census. The Census is not flawed, it is recent from 2006 and update your source before was from 1999! So just put this rest and just dont what most people want on here and cut it.(XGustaX 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, its true that your source is not athouratative and there no opinion evolved whether it is or not. It just that crystal clear. I mean com'on all you have to do is read the article. The offical Argentine source is just that Offical and from the government and up to date. This would mean there is little error. You should be a lot kinder to people on here because if you aren't it will come back to haunt you later. (64.132.0.250 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

I hardly dought the reliablity of your source, my friend. A Media Marketing company is not the highly WP:RS we look for here. (DoubleNine 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Ethnicity is a very complicated issue, and I happen to disagree with the result of this discussion. For starters, demographic statistics are not perfect, and are based on people's responses. The census in Argentina, in terms of ethnicity, was based simply on self-ascription: that is, they asked the individuals whether they consider themselves Mestizo, Amerindian or of European ancestry. Needless to say, very few individuals self-ascribe as Mestizo and Amerindian. Genetic studies and their finding reports, which suggest a 56% of the population with some Amerindian ancestry, are blatantly ignored in this article, even though they are included in es:Argentina and es:Composición étnica de Argentina, all properly referenced, which suggests the information presented here in the English Wikipedia is bordering on WP:POV. If this is a contentious issue that is discussed ad nauseum, then I propose that we Request for Arbitration so that all arguments, fully referenced, are presented to stand scrutiny by external editors to suggest and unbiased conclusion in this particular matter. --the Dúnadan 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, This hasn't been an issue for a while. But thanks for your help. XGustaX 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

We have alreadeady decided add genetic researchs (thi is no the only one and there are other THAT CONTRADICT THIS). An besides we discuss how this research was not really accurated because it was made in some provinces with cetain pattern and not in other and besides some markers sometimes common for Southern Europeans were considered native americans.

(CHECH OUT THE ARCHIVES PLEASE). the demographics are not about genetic pressicion but about geneotypes, and besides research contrdisct themselves!.

That's why we included them in the demographic's article.

Could you check out the talk page before change things. Official sources are the govermment and the cia not the ones you posted, that's why they mention 95-97%. 190.16.20.42 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Laura_Lynch190.16.20.42 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Mariano could you please revert the vandalism in the demographic page I tried but i couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean your vandalism[9]? It has been reverted. --the Dúnadan 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Pablo I write you again because i know you're on vacation but we have another guy making vandalism with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) The anon user above has made unreferenced claims here and elsewhere of actions of other well-intentioned users: He has claimed that he is reverting vandalism: he is actually reverting a version fully backed up with sources and properly referenced that does not hide information but properly cites different sources and researches by renown universities in Argentina. His repeated deletions and reversions (which far outnumber what is allowed by WP:3RR) are detrimental to the project. He claims that there was no discussion regarding the current version. I direct him/her to this section in which at least two users expressed their disagreement with the biased and POV version that we have replaced.

Like I said before, I strongly believe solid references and not opinions should be included in the article. Moreover, by WP:NPOV if there are two different contradicting valid sources then both should be included. Choosing one and claiming that one Academic research is "more valid" than another one is POV, of course, especially when the other version is fully backed up by solid sources. If this is a contentious issue, then I propose that we request for Mediation and/or Arbitration. --the Dúnadan 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the demographic's section

I want to know what's th position of the people who has been discussed the different sections in this article for years like Pablo, Mariano, etc...

do this user discussed anything in the talk page before changed the demographic's section???

in case you decided to keep this. I would add the other researches and the critcs to the genetic research he/she mention and we discussed in this talk page for months and months.

And this section is gonnabe a perfect disaster again!! (just like it was the demographic's section of the United States too. But finally they decided not to included in demographics, genetic researches as the famous who said that on average all peopel selfdescribing as white american was 4,5% amerindian and 1% african american. They deleted the mention that the African American are 20% european according to genetic research.

The same with the case of Brazil.

so WE HAVE DECIDED TO DO WHAT EVERYBODY IN OTHER COUNTRIES that are melting pots of the time of uruguay, Unites States, Argentinam Canada did. Based the demographic's in the census self description, and other official numbers.

EVEN the Mexican section (a country with a less multicultural life and most homogeneous (really mixed population) based their numbers in the official numbers.

Genetic has not point if a person is 90% and has a native american ancestors (and hence marker) is not European?? For example Anjelina jolie, kim Basinger, Jessica Biel, Bill clinton, Kevin Costner and MANY OTHERS who have a great grandparent native american (and hence according to that research would have been considered the 50% of the population with a native american ancestry, (and 10% of the population here and there is included as "inhabitants" because the research was made to "inhabitants" of any race, at an even larger extend is immigrants from mixed raced countries like bolivia, Peru that came to Argentina and form Mexico and Panama, Colombia that emigrated to the United States). But really does it really matter if Bill Clinton had a great grandfather native american in the way that he's phenotipycally for the entire world!!, and even genetic he's just enterely european for almost everything except for this tiny part. There is african admixture in europe anyway (check out the article) of about 1% in places like Norway!!. Do you think it should be mentioned it in the demographics?

That's why we (and the Americans, and the Brazilians and the Canadians) decided included (like evryone else) the official numbers, that reflect the truely important that is the phenotype and predominantly markers in their genotype.

It's funny I have seen in these years from discussion about the possible native american ancestries of many white Americans, or the possible black ancestries of some white brazilians (speacially in Notehr Brazil). My best os fo now the time this guy brought the researcjh about the fact that French Canadians were part meti (canadian mestizos) or about 5% native american on average. So he said the that we should put that the people self described as "french canadians" in the cesus should we labeled as (5% amerinidian-95% french). I was like WTF??

anyway, in the end all this is quite irrelevant, and as I said before the markers that were labeled as native american for that 50% of the population (10% immigrants anyways, and about 5-15% self described already as non europeans (asian, mixed etc), are also found in a minority but important part (if we have in mind that the main Argentinian ethnic group is Italian) of southern Europeans and in Asians (than in Argentina are over a hundred thousand of the population and is incrasing really fast both Chinese and Korean)

Anyway, back to the point what are we going to do with this section?? so I decided how to add the text of the other research. In case we decided mix census and phenotype and culture with small parts of a percentage of the population....

Because ANY demographic's section mention it. And we just add the dates in the articles about genetic researches.

And on the other hand becuase (and for the 100th time check out the archives) other articles contradict the research you mention and have different dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop pushing your POV down our throats Just end it as they say, enough is enough. The reason Wikipedia is NOT a reiable source and i believe it will never be is because people like you cite these kind of sources. Rather then citing these kind of unathouratative sources, why not cite offical government sources and other encylopedic sources for example Encarta, which is what we have done.

genetic research are mentinon in the proper ARTICLE BUT ANY COUNTRY IN THE AMERICAS from Canada, to Uruguay has accepted genetic research of a distant native american ancestry as a reference for a demographic's section in an encyclopedic way... It's just insane... It's mentioned in the article about genetic researches (even wiht the hundred of critics to that research) as are mentioned the ones in the United States, and other coutnries form the Americas. If Argentina should mention genetic sreasearch in the demographic's section (totally out of place anyway) they should be mentioned in every coutnry from the Americas (at leats) or in all the countries in the demographic's section.... Don't you think?

that's why I'm deleting that, because we already discussed here. And you're just mixing apples with oranges as I explained to you in the previous post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 July 2007

Firstly it is difficult to know who is meant by "you" as no user name is mentioned. Secondly, you appear to be using two accounts as you have just used the IP user 190.16.20.42 on this talk page where you state you are going to delete something. Then you have clearly logged in as Snowhite1985 to edit the article presumably because the article is semi-protected and IP users cannot edit at present. And lastly please will you sign your comments. All it takes is adding four tildes at the end ( four of these ~). If you don't sign your comments other users do not know who is leaving the message. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is pushing any POV except the anon user himself, and we have remained calm, but the anon user himself. Please note that the current version is citing ALL sources, including the sources he supports: the official government sources (census self-ascription), encyclopedic and international sources (CIA, Britannica), and academic sources (genetic research). As such, the section is by far, WP:NPOV (all verifiable sources are included), ALL different approaches are being presented, and ALL are been given their due weight. We are not hiding any source (like he wishes to do), and all sources are authoritative. We are not saying one source right and the other wrong (like he does) we are simply stating what they say and what they are referring to. If the articles in other countries [do not] wish to include genetic research, that is up to the editors there to decide. In this particular case, and as the editors in es:Argentina and es:Demografía de Argentina have set the example, including ALL relevant sources not only complies with everything Wikipedia stands for and all its consensual norms, but it also enhances the quality of the article by providing factual information from ALL relevant sources thus including ALL different POVs: both the social as well as the biological approach to ethnography. --the Dúnadan 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographic's section "Dunadan and Tangarines"

Look I've already said here that Dunadan is editing a section that we have been discussed and we arrived to an agreement, with all all the people who have been working in this article for about two years.

We have a long discussion and we (as Americans did, just check out their talk section in "archives") decided not to mentioned that research (and others) in this section, because obviously because they contradicted each other because the markers used to comprove a native american ancestor are present in a minority of Southern Europeans, (and Argentinian main ethnic groups -Italian and Spaniards- are southern Europeans (We are talking about millions and a minority such as in S. Europe present those markers). Besides it can we find even in major percentage of Asians. And in Argentina exist an important Asian community of 100,000 Asian Argentines which is incresing very fast (check out the "Asian Argentines" section).

We mention that article in the extense demographic's section. But we had decided not to included here almost a year ago, and the demographic's section didn't have any problem since them, excepted for the number of legalized illegal immigrants that reach 1 million a time ago with the new programme.

If we mention one research we have to mention two others that contradict this one. And was it worth it for an encyclopedian article about a country not demographics? (that's why we mentioned it there and in the article about genetics, where the other countries like Ths Unites States and Brazil decided to post about genetic studies.

I've discussed everything before or (a few times) after I posted in this section, the one who never posted here was (or at least I never saw it was Dunadan to discuss before change a section that has been discussed here.

How would you feel after discussed and cited your sources with other users in the same project and I visited let's say the US demographic's section where they decided to add just the numbers of the self describing census and I cited the 30 different genetic researches they discussed there.

You say I commet vandalim when all what I'm doing is reverting your modification to the precious text (the one that has been discussed here). Because even if you have sources you can just posted something without consult in the talk page as Tangarines said to me, and I replied him saying I was just reverting the text that was posted for you without disscuss in the "talk page".

If you want we can discussed about add both researches. But it would have nonsense. And besides why would we have to do it again if we have already discussed it and it was not added in the other demographic's section??.

You're even deleting deleting the disscussions.

I have been here for years Tangarines I'm sorry I never sign up my messages. But for example I was the one who wrote the last two comments here. I have a dinamic IP sorry.

Tangerines I didn't mean to post with two different users, I just forgot to login in before, I hoped you coukd undestad it.

Anyway, here you have all the discussion we have A YEAR AGO! about the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentina/Archive_4

Dunadan, you have not disscussed before post.

We? spend months before arrive to a at least partially finish section as you can read in the link abode.

I even let your part anyway righ before I just modificated the part which said "self-describing ethnic in the census" (or something similar), because a census is obviously about self-description. It was redundant.

again read the history, we had decided included both researches and then don't it since it didn't make any sense (except in a section about genetics or at least in the extensive demographic article)

tangarines pleas etell me I finally sign ok this time.

Greetings Ornella Lynch.

Snowhite1985 07:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is so hard to follow your arguments, but they boil down, again to two points; and I am tired of repeating myself over and over, specially to a user who engages in vandalism. Here we go again: I discussed the issue before editing. If you cannot read the above sections, then please refer to the posted link I provided in my previous intervention. It doesn't matter whether one thing was agreed a year ago or 5 years ago: consensus are not written in stone. Please read WP:consensus. A new consensus can be reached. The nature of my edits are FULLY backed up by WP:NPOV (I am including ALL versions, the ones you support, and the ones I support, plus the ones other users support; you are flagrantly hiding one research claiming it is invalid based on ¡¡your own opinion¡¡), by WP:Verifiability (threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth or what you perceive to be true), and by WP:CITE (my version properly cited solid sources that included the census bureau of Argentina, two reputable tertiary sources: CIA and Britannica, as well as a reputable primary source: a genetic research).

Pablo, you might want to remain outside the debate, and I commend you for your impartiality. However, you cannot ignore that the edits of Snowhite are detrimental to the project: he is stubbornly holding on to a version that violates, at least three consensual policies of wikipedia (NPOV, Verifiability and Cite), not to mention his violations of WP:3RR (after reverting 11 times!) and possibly WP:SOCK. --the Dúnadan 01:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Pablo-flores: If Snowhite does not wish to continue debating then I must say that if the page is unprotected I will revert back to the original version based on two grounds: It fully complies with WP:Verifiability and most importantly WP:NPOV: it is showing both Snowhite's sources as well as other sources, and it covers the ethnographic aspect from from a multi-perspective: social (self-adscription), political (census), academic (encyclopedias [Britannica] and international organizations [CIA]) and biological (genetic researches). While he has challenged some sources, he is doing so on the basis of demagogy and verbosity since he has not provided any equally valid source or link to a verifiable source. If he does, however, and to comply with NPOV, all sources, including his, must be stated. It has received the support of at least 4 other users: ExRat, Latka, Tangerines and Carl.bunderson all of which reverted Snowhite's version and classified it as WP:vandalism, [10]. In other words, this is not an edit war per se, but continued and reiterated reversions to a POV biased version from a user who also violated WP:3RR.

--the Dúnadan 18:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics again

Argentines keep trying to portrait Argentina as a FULLY european country with no trace of Mestizos and Indigenous peoples whatsoever, now what is going with these FLAGS about the heritage of Argetina??: The heritage of Argentina comes from two primary European sources:

Spaniards Italians

Other Europeans that have contributed significantly include:

Portuguese Germans French Poles Other Slavic descendants Other Germanic descendants Ashkenazi Jews from Western and Eastern Europe

Studies have shown that more than half of Argentines have some Amerindian background, so why is it that they keep trying to hide it? we all know that they had a lot of Spanish and Italian inmigrantes but why would you have to highlight it? so people won't even notice all the information about Mestizos? User:Supaman89

I am among the first to point out that the Amerindian contributions to Argentine demographics are often downplayed. However, it should also be noted that the "more than half" includes mostly traces and, in general, Argentine culture reflects a European heritage and not the Mestizo aspect as in other Latin American countries. Most of Argentina IS overwhelmingly European and its society reflects this. To this regard the article, as it sits right now, is much more balanced than it has been. I have no objection to the flags (eye candy, I guess), as long as the Amerindian aspect remains front and centre. Mariokempes 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I also believe the content is well balanced now. I personally do not like the flags, but I have no objection to them, as long as the content is informative, neutral, accurate and well referenced. --the Dúnadan 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we re-write that part like this:

Europeans: (Mostly Spaniards and Italians, but also from other parts of Europe) Mestizos: (A mix of European and Amerindian, half of the population has some Amerindian descent) Amerindians: Native people of Argentina, which has almost disappeared because of mixture with Europeans.

No other country (Not even the USA), has flags to highlight the origin of their immigrants, it clearly overshadows the part that talks about mestizos. User:Supaman89

The content is by far better the way it is right now with percentages, genetic studies, census etc. The rest is only "eye candy" like Mariokempes said. --the Dúnadan 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Well like you guys said, if you don't mind, would any of you be opposed to getting rid of the flags and putting Eu/Mz/Am list? just like in any other article? --User:Supaman89 I think your proposal is too generic and skews the emphasis away from the fact that Argentina is overwhelmingly European. I prefer it as is, with or without the flags. Mariokempes 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I agree with Mariokempes, your proposal is too generic, not even a reference is provided. The first paragraph, the way it is right now -and which has achieved a somewhat rough consensus- portrays all POVs (census, international publications and genetic studies) and I believe it is giving due weight to all. Most importantly, it is verifiable. The second paragraph may need to be reviewed and can be improved. --the Dúnadan 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I strongly recomend you reading this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert It will maybe help you understund beter part of argentinian demographics. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_in_Argentina may algso help you.

Genetic study

I've reverted Paullen (talk · contribs) several times regarding his unjustified deletion of the results of a genetic study showing Amerindian descent in 56% of Argentinians. I won't do it anymore. I'm waiting for the user to present his reasons here, and I expect a discussion. This is a discussion of form (removal of sourced material), not of content (I don't care what the study says). I'm withdrawing from it so my role as administrator won't conflict, as Paullen claims I'm threatening him. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this issue has been brought up several times before. Some of us have discussed; other users prefer to simply delete. Reiterated deletions or reversionswithout reasons -in spite of being asked for them in a discussion- border at best on lack of etiquette, at worse on vandalism. I assume that the administrative -and impartial- prescribed actions for those cases should be warning the user first. If unsuccessful, then blocking the page or the user would also be appropriate. --the Dúnadan 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I and others have in the past explained why this article isn't a good reference but it seems many don't get it. Articles about non peer reviewed studies do not fit Wikipedia criteria for reliable references because the study in the article hasn't been published in a reputable Scientific publication like Science or Nature and peer reviewed by experts in the field.

Therefore, the study is scientifically worthless. This isn't a very important issue in a tabloid newspaper because they have no reason to verify scientific studies. Clarín is the most popular paper in Argentina and a rather entertaining read but it's not a scientific publication.

The only scientific studies that should be used are peer reviewed studies. If the published article was of a study that was peer reviewed and found to be worthy of inclusion in a reputable scientific paper then it's worthy of inclusion in this page. This has nothing to with the content of the study but simply about verifiabilty and ensuring a neutral point of view. Please also read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.

-Coldheartedman (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC) First, you need to provide a source that proves that the study wasn't peer reviewed, otherwise it is hearsay. Secondly, even if so, it is you opinion that it is scientifically worthless, not the opinion of scientists, unless, of course, you provide a reliable source that proves your point. Thirdly, Clarin did not conduct the study, it was a university (i.e. the Academia, i.e. the scientists). Clarin reported it in as much as the New York Times reports scientific discoveries in their Science section. Discrediting a scientific study by the fact that it was reported by a news agency is ludicrous. You've said it yourself, and perhaps you should read the sources you are citing: Verifiability. You must provide an equally valid reputable source that discredits a valid reputable source. Your opinions must be substantiated and backed up by sources, otherwise they do not comply with the two policies you just cited.--the Dúnadan 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed here and other pages that the inclusion of scientific data about population genetics is not only confusing especially to people who have little or no understanding of the concepts involved but promotes misinterpretation and confusion. Ethnicity is more complex than simple DNA haplogroup markings. A scientific study that isn't peer reviewed belongs in a dust bin. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Again, it is your opinion against that of scientists. If you wish to trash the scientific study to a dust bin, you cannot do it yourself, at least not in Wikipedia. You must provide reliable sources to prove your claim against a reliable source. --the Dúnadan 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Amerindian and Mestizo blood

I do not know why people keep erasing the part about Amerindian ancestry in Argentina.

I have been to Buenos Aires myself and I have seen lots of people with visible Indigenous features there. I would say that 20% of Buenos Aires's population has visible Amerindian ancestry.

If you go to LOS ANGELES you will think that not 20% but 60% of the population is MEXICAN (does it mean 60% of the population of USA is Mexican?) and most of the rest are blacks and asians with a very small white minority...the same goes to NEW YORK. In LONDON also 40% of the population is composed of non British immigrants from former colonies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.82 (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Many of the people you saw are Bolivian and Peruvian immigrants who came to Argentina in the '90's. Most of them are not Argentine citizens, and may be that's why they are not shown in the official census.--Damifb 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Buenos Aires is the most European city in Argentina. In the interior of the country, people of Indigenous features may be at least 50% of the population.

I do not know from where they get Argentina is 97% White. If it is a census, ok, we must respect it.

Hi. There's no census about this subject. Oficial census does not ask this. But if you ask people on an informal base I think 97% of them will respond "i'm white". Nobody here denies having indian ancestors but it's not a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Df2073 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But, in reality, there are millions of Argentineans with visible Amerindian features. It is important to put the information about genetic sources who found 56% of Argentineans have Amerindian ancestors.Opinoso 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Buenos Aires is not the most European city by far! Evidently you have never been to Rosario, Rio Gallegos, Ushuaia, Puerto Madryn or most of the Patagonian and Central areas of this country. I'd say that at least between 95-80% of the country's population is white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.173.170 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 July 2007

Dear unsigned- that is not the point. It is important to put all relevant information covering all valid viewpoints- including sources who found 56% of Argentineans have Amerindian ancestors... if this is reputable (on that point I cannot comment). Mariokempes 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Buenos Aires has lots of immigration from regional countries (Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay). That is what you are referring to.--Jersey Devil 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But, in reality, there are millions of Argentineans with visible Amerindian features. It is important to put the information about genetic sources who found 56% of Argentineans have Amerindian ancestors.Opinoso 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there aren't any reliable sources to claim that 56% of Argentines have some degree of Amerindian background. The only source cited is a very biased article from a well known sensasionalist newspaper(Clarin). If you read about these studies from an official source you'll see that you can barely get to this conclussion. The study analized 320 samples only; them being 100 from the South(Chubut and Rio Negro), 120 from the center area (buenos aires, mendoza, etc..) and 100 from the north. These studies do not represent the real genetic make up of the population; as each of the country areas were taken as if their populations were equal in numbers (100/120/100); while in reality most people are centered in the central areas of the country(buenos aires, rosario, santa fe, mendoza), and the south is almost empty. This way we can see that population distribution was not contemplated in these studies and that it's conclusions can hardly be used to state such a fact as 56% of Argentines having Amerindian background. The fact that there are millions of Argentinians with Amerindian genes is true, but there are still no studies proving that this number is as high as 56%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Study

A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again

To add a discussion to RFC:

Use the RFC posting tool, or: Add {{templatename| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) }} Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename". Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. $\wedge$ might work outside of the time parameter. | works again. Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

I personally propose to skip the genetic study, first: because it is not oficial, second because according to the article only 320 persons (out of 40 millon) of 9 provinces ( Argentina has 23 provinces) were included in the study, so this amount of people does not represent the whole country, if we calculate the percentage of 300 people over 40 millon we get 0.000075%...I would say that is not a figure of the total population it is just a posible estimation which I think are not considered in worldwide encyclopedias. I was going to erase this part of the article but I wanted to hear someone's opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale4117 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the above comment. First, what is "official"? Genetic studies are not conducted by the government but by scientists. Secondly, statistically speaking, the size of the sample is irrelevant to our case: whatever assumptions were taken to prove Gaussian normality (or lack thereof), so as to select a random sample of that size, is a discussion that belongs to the scientific realm. Most studies are valid if the sample is randomnly and correctly selected with as few as 30 individuals if Gaussian normality is assumed (or proved). This is really not the place to explain the intricacies of Statistic analysis, and their validity. Please review a book concerning sample selection. If necessary, read the original paper to understand their sample selection method. Discarding a scientific paper with personal opinions is unacceptable in Wikipedia. In fact, the genetic study was not discarded in es:Argentina or es:Demografía de Argentina and it was thoroughly discussed. --the Dúnadan 16:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientists are not infallible which is why there is a peer review process by which studies are determined to be of any scientific value. Sample sizes are irrelevant? Never heard that before. You seem to have a lot of opinions as to the validity of that particularly study but nothing to back it up. You cannot read the original paper because it's unpublished. By all means, provide a link to this 'original paper' so to let others judge for themselves. -Coldheartedman (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have missunderstood me because I am not saying that the study is wrong or something like that I am just saying that it should be considered as an estimation thats all. Besise this is not the only study made, there are like 5 more:[15],[16] in which one study says the european contribution was 70% other 80% and others only take account the african "extint" composition so why not considering other studies besise only this one?

Please review the archive as this issue has already been discussed, and it was agreed to keep this information since it is verifiable and informative. Before you delete it, you must obtain the consensus of the editors, and up to this point you don't have it. I oppose its deletion, since it is a scientific study conducted by an Argentine university to refer to the entire country. The first source you provide refers exclusively to the city of Buenos Aires, and not to the entire country, so it cannot be used to disqualify the first one. The second one simply says that there is "large variance" but does not specify if the variance is "regionally", "across individuals" much less in "genetic studies" as you imply. Therefore, your two sources do not substantiate your point, at best, they complement it. Please do not delete perfectly verifiable content, and especially without the consensus of the editors. --the Dúnadan 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The current Demography (ethnicity) section as it stands is fine IMO. It's understandable and to the point with no scientific gibberish. However, people reading this page have a right to know as to the scientific validity of a mentioned study. Best practice dictates only reliable references be used and to keep the page simple and to the point which is topical considering this page has recently been removed from the good article list. -Coldheartedman (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is the second time I ask you to please stop reverting and deleting verifiable sources without sources to back up your claims. If you continue with this thread I will get the attention of an administrator to this issue. Please know that:

You have not been able to provide any source that claims that a valid scientific study is "gibberish". Calling it gibberish on personal grounds is not enough. You must provide an equally reliable source if you with to disqualify a scientific study. You are not a scientist, neither I am. Wikipedia reports what the scientific community says. If there are concerns, these concerns must come from the scientific community itself, not based on your own opinions. That is why the genetic study was kept at the Spanish Wikipedia.You are disqualifying references and naming them "unreliable" just based on your own personal opinion. Please provide reliable sources to back up your preposterous claim, or stop reverting. Please read: WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. Being removed from the Good article list had nothing to do with the demographic section. If at all, deleting perfectly sourced information based on personal opinions diminished the quality of the article. Inserting personal opinions such as "Argentina is a developed country on par with France", while deleting sources such as the World Bank, the IMF and the CIA Factbook that stated otherwise, also diminished the quality of the article.

--the Dúnadan 03:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC) PS, as for the FTSE Country Classification, please read the source thoroughly. They are not classifying "stock markets". They are classifying countries based on economic size, wealth, quality of markets as well as their depth and breadth.[17] Their classification is provided for stock-market investors, so that they decide how strong the country is before they invest in their stock market (and gauge possible collapses in the economy that would entail a collapse in the stock market). They are not classifying the stock-market themselves (i.e. they are not saying "secondary emergent stock market", but a "secondary emergent country" based on the four factors above). --the Dúnadan 03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all I did not revert the part until you changed it, someone else would have done it check in the history and you will realize that it wasn't me who changed the article. The day after I posted the request in this talk page the article was changed and I thought "someone have read my request and change the article" then you appeared (since you have a serious problem with this part of the article) and edited it back. Besise your edition says the amerindian admixture is present in close of 56% of the population, but oficially [18] says 56% of the population has at least one amerindian ancestor including people with european background, taken account in the 56%, which is more clear to read. I personally don't know why you keep changing this article and as I read below this is not the first time you are discussing about this and other users mentioned to you that in canada and the united states there had made studies like this one but they have decided not to add it to their main articles. And finally the study which I mentioned to you is not only in buenos aires look at "Composicion Etnica de Argentina" in the study parts and you will see that there are a lot of studys refering the whole country. Salu2 a Catalunya..

--Ale4117 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a "serious problem" with that part of the article, but I do have a "serious problem" with users (registered or otherwise) who delete, change or discredit verifiable primary sources based on personal opinions, and I am not saying that you are such a user, but since you mention that it is not the first time that "I" discuss it (in reality, several users joined me), you should take the time to evaluate their arguments thoroughly, before implying that I have "problems" with a section. I think other users actually have "problems" with the content proved by those genetic studies. Now, I read the link you provided, and I assume you did so too. Let me cite/translate what it says, referring to the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires: "In this way, considering the results as a whole, it has been proven that in the sample in question, more than fifty percent of the samples exhibit mitochondrial halogroups [which are] characteristic of the original populations [i.e. Amerindian], 52% in the sample of the Central Region [of Argentina], 56% in the Sample of the South South-West and 66% in the region North North East. On the other hand, 20% exhibit the "T" variant, characteristic of the original populations at the DYS199 locus. The detection of both original [i.e. Amerindian] lineages, both through through the father and the mother side, is restricted to a 10%. The population that does [not] present any Amerindian contribution in the Central Region is 43%, in the South South West is 37% and in the North North-East is 27%. In average, less than 40% (36.4%) of the population exhibits no Amerindian lineage on both sides, [lineages] which could be European, Asiatic or African." "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, emphasis mine).

Now, see the "tone" of what you wrote [emphasis mine]: "A study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires has estimated that approximately 56% of the population has at least one Amerindian ancestor, though this takes into account many individuals of primarily European background with distant indigenous ancestry."

Are you really citing what the article says? I really think the guys at Clarín did a better job at interpreting the results.[19]. But anyway, at least the information is still in the article. Please note, I repeat, that scientific studies are not "official" (by which you mean accepted by the government). Politicians are not experts in genetics, geneticists are the experts, and politicians cannot say whether a scientific proof is valid or not, only scientists can. I think the authors of es:Composición genética de Argentina did an extraordinary job in that article. I wish we could make a similar job here at the English Wikipedia. I think part of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia in Latin American articles is that not all the population is properly represented, which has led to constant overstatements of the "White" population of their countries (and even to prove who has more "Whites"), as I have seen in the articles of Chile, Mexico, Brazil, even Latin Americans, and the like. --the Dúnadan 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You do have a serious problem specially with me, if not why did you change the article again? If you don't have a problem you would leave it just the way it was, besise you tell me that I deleted or changed the article, when the only person that changed everyday the article was you I don't care if you and your "friends" think the same, I will be pleased to talk or argue (as you wish) with you all the time you want because I will always be here. Not everybody thinks the same as you, and having a group of "friends" doesn't give you the power to control the article you are not the king of it or of wikipedia this is a dictionary working as a community where everybody disscuss their ideas and then finally get to a decision. I hope that arguements like this one don't happen again. Salu2

--Ale4117 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Please, read WP:Etiquette and avoid criticizing other users. Maybe you didn't read the above, so I suggest you read it again. A summary is: I do not have a problem with you (as a user/person), but I do have a problem when any user (you or anyone) ignore perfectly reliable sources because those users have a problem with the content of it. You provided a source, and I used your own source and cited verbatim what it said. Yet, you don't like it. If you don't, you need to provide something else besides your opinion and your criticism towards users. If you are pleased to talk or argue, then talk or argue by bringing reliable sources to prove your claim. So far, you've brought one source, which is the source I used. So, I ask you, why do you have a problem with this issue? --the Dúnadan 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I am not criticizing anyone. Why don't we make an agreement, to stop fighting like children... the article as you edited its ok as you see I haven't told you anything about it but let's leave it as it was, below the article and we have a truce.ok?

--Ale4117 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I don't find any compelling reason why relevant information pertaining to ethnicity and related to the very first sentence in the Ethnicity section should be relegated to the bottom of the article. Is there a particular reason for this?--the Dúnadan 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This was a hard one to follow, but I find myself agreeing with Dunadan. Ale4117 hasn't shown any conclusive, reliable proof that the studies being cited and included by Dunadan are misleading, inaccurate, or in some way invalid. There is also no reason to move the material to a different location (as in this diff); it works better directly after the other genetics information. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion

I agree on keeping the study within the scope of the demographics section of the article. As far as census go, most of them are self-reported (people saying what they believe or wish to be). I find that to be much more questionable than a study done by university professors. Nonetheless, it’s ironic to think that because the government legitimizes the self-reporting census it should become more valid than some research conducted in a scientific way. Likeminas (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversial issue

This issue has long been disscussed in this talk page and in all articles in reference to Argentine demographics. I think that by adding this source here links to the confusion surrounding the first paragraph stating 90% European descent. I agree that there does need to be more written about the Amerindian ancestry of many Argentines and also the contribution of non European groups in the history and culture of the country but it needs to be based as close as possible on facts and not on pseudoscientific reasoning, media sensationalism and POV.

First of all, the study which shows that 56% of those in a sample of 200 Argentines uses a form of genetic testing that only traces one lineage from either the mother or the father's side. Professor Daniel Corach is of the opinion that anyone with one Amerind lineage from either the MtDNA (passed on only from the mother) or Y-Chromosome (passed along the direct male line only) is mestizo and those who have both Amerindian lineages are full blooded Amerindian, that's not the case. You can be 95% ancestrally European and be totally Amerindian genetically using this type of analysis because it's not measuring the actual amount of admixture but simply the oldest ancestor from either lineages. Uniparental DNA testing is a useful tool in ethnically homogenous populations like you find in Europe, Africa and Asia in order to determine the ancient origins of peoples and it's also widely used to determine the oldest paternal ancestor with genealogists researching a family name. There has been some interesting work done recently on the British population that shows that the original Celtic population was not entirely wiped out after the Germanic invasions in England as is believed, something that surprises many. However, in the Americas 'Caucasian' doesn't mean, nor has it ever meant, 100% genetically European so uniparental testing should be interpreted carefully and as the Corach et al study has not been fully released the methodology and techniques used cannot be fully reviewed.

The Washington Post article about Afro- Argentine ancestry is just bad journalism as the actual study[20] concludes that the demise of Afro- Argentines wasn't just due to inter-marrying as claimed in the article but also as the study termed, 'known historical events'. These events include war, illness, emigration from Argentina to neighboring countries such as Brazil and Uruguay and the 'Europeanization' of the country after Juan Manuel de Rosas was deposed. The resulting flood of European immigrants resulted in the segregation of former slave descendents from mainstream society due to political and racialist reasons. Basically, the 10% figure is simply the eight people in a study of ninety 'white' Argentines who had significant enough levels of Sub Saharan African ancestry to be detectable in a DNA test while eighty two had nil percentage. The average Sub Saharan African ancestry of the Buenos Aires genepool was determined to be 2.2%. You could use the same study to show that Argentina has the least amount of African ancestry in the Americas if you compared it to similar studies done of other American nations so it's a matter of interpretation.

The second main genetical component in Argentina is of course Amerindian. Unfortunately for historical reasons it's not easy to gauge the actual figure of Argentines with Amerindian ancestry because of poor official statistics. The official figure from the Argentine government (not the CIA) is 90% Caucasian and the rest mestizo with a smaller Amerindian minority. These figures definitely overestimate the Caucasian population but there are no better figures and scientific studies like those carried out by Corach et al are not substitutes for official census figures. The figure that the CIA world fact book provides is is definately wrong and is not an Argentine figure. It's possibly an older figure that categorised all Argentines as caucasian or 'Europeo' and the 3% are simply Bolivians and Chileans living in the country but I'm not totally sure about this. Nevertheless the are two recogized studies, Average composition of the Argentine genome (Avena et al, 2006) that state,

European contribution 80.2%, Amerindian Contribution 18.1%, African contribution 1.4%[21][22]

It's 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 data[23].

In the Demographics of the USA page, similar studies[24] about admixture are usually removed as Americans refer to low levels of Non European admixture in whites as 'insignificant".

Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I sense some uneasiness with the study. Fercho85 and others have dedicated much of their time in Wikepedia to argue for Whiteness of Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil and that's their call. While I’m aware that in Latin-america for some strange reason being called “Indian” might be interpreted as a pejorative, I hope everyone knows that is definitely not the case here. And I find it rather amusing that some contributors feel some sort of impetuous urge to obscure these findings. I think we ought to seek the truth, wherever it might take us. I believe that’s what makes Wikipedia so unique. But I digress.

Now, let’s take a quick look at the summary of a few studies done on the demographics of Argentina.

Average composition of the Argentine genome (Avena et al, 2006)

A group of researchers belonging to diverse scientific Argentine and French institutions (CONICET, UBA, Centres D'Anthropologie de Toulouse),on the base of information gathered in the Hospital of Clinics and Italian of the City of Buenos Aires, concluded that:

The genetic average admixture of the Argentine population, contains 79.9 % of European contribution, 15.8% Amerindian and 4.3% African.

Average composition of the Argentine genome (Seldin et al, U. California 2006)

A group of researchers belonging to diverse scientific Argentine, North American, Swedish, and Guatemalan institutions, directed by Michael F. Seldin of University of California, concluded that:

The genetic average structure of the Argentine population contains 78% of European contribution, 19.4% Amerindian and 2.5% African (using the Bayesian algorithm).

African Ancestors (CGFyL-UBA, 2005)

A research of Centro de Genética de Filosofía y Letras of the University of Buenos Aires established in 2005, after analyzed 500 blood samples in the Italian Hospital, Hospital of Clinics, and the Regional Medical Center of the city of La Plata, that 4.3% of the analyzed samples corresponding to inhabitants of greater Buenos Aires contains genetic African scoreboards (though it is not observed at the phenotypical level).

I’ve read some interesting statements that question the methodology of the study, while at the same time they give recommendations of how the research should be performed. It's interesting to see assertions that recommend Uniparental DNA testing as a useful tool in ethnically homogenous populations like you find in Europe, Africa and Asia. But could Italy or Spain be considered countries with homogeneous populations? Which, by the way, happen to be the main immigrant input in Argentina. I’m no geneticist or biologist but I sincerely doubt they are, considering the historical backgrounds of each one of them.

I do agree that the we should stick to the facts, while keeping in mind that the census in Argentina is done a basis of self-identification (again, something much questionable and controversial than the study itself). The genetics analysis, however, does serve a purpose and that is; to show that the self-identification figures legitimized by the Argentinean government are definitely over blown. Study after study the results seem to be consistent with that conclusion. In order to attempt to keep an article that strives for a NPOV the study should be included so that it serves as counter-balance information. Let's allow the reader discern by himself.

Likeminas (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a right to your point of view but I would like to see you substantiate your claims more thoroughly like providing verifiable sources, until then your point of view remains just that. Argentina does has a distinct and estimated non European component but demographics should be based on known facts and statistics. The Argentine genetical studies have already a section at Demographics of Argentina. Even according to the American Census 2000 state "ethnicity reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify these categories are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature"[25]. Finally but not lastly the term Ethnicity as wikipedia states, as human groups that regard themselves among their physical appearance, name, language, history, and religion;[26] so we must not confuse Phenotype with Genotype.

Cheers, --Fercho85 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It’s not my opinion what I’m stating, I’m just listing facts and findings revealed though several studies. My opinion is that they should be listed because of their relevance within the scope of the demographics section. My opinion is that they would keep a NPOV by exposing the reader to different pieces of information regarding the demographics of Argentina. That could be considered my opinion, by in fact it isn’t. It’s the standard of neutrality and reliable information that Wikipedia requires from its contributors.

Castizos many of them look and could very well pass as “white”. This ethnic group constitutes a significant part of the populations of Colombia, Chile and Costa Rica among others, yet most of these countries include them in the mestizo percentage of their censuses, since they tend to self-identify as such. Nonetheless, they could very well be included in the white category and inflate the figures as Argentina is currently doing but they do not. Now, let's ask ourselves; could it be that castizos in Argentina believe themselves to be of European descendant and state so when asked in the census? Is there a correlation between the conclusion of the sutdy and this line of reasoning?

While I’m not disputing what the American census considers to be an ethnicity, I wonder if that’s also applicable to the census of every country. After all, the article is about Argentina. But according to the current definition; an Ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage. So we know that it could be real or presumed. Now, all the studies I’ve listed so far have a common denominator, and that is; every single study puts the percentage of Argentina’s European component at a lower level than it is currently stated in the article. Is that fact or opinion? Scientifically concluded or informally reasoned?

I can’t help it but to wonder; why are there some contributors so inclined to obscure and burry this fact with statements that question the methodology of the study and call it controversial? Is the study controversial because it sheds new light on an equivocal presumption an ethnic group believed to be true? Do those contributors have any verifiable sources that can support their claims or suspicions?

By the way, I’ll request to protect the article. There are way too many IP’s blindly trying to revert the information without any prior discussion.

Likeminas (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The preceding was a very long-winded try at imposing a personal point of view in bad faith. It's well-known that haplotypes can be shared among people of very different backgrounds irrespective of their ancestry and, what's more, the sampling used was absurdly small and unrepresentative, as they were xtracted in public hospitals (which many in Argentina avoid). Accordingly, the "study" being pushed is crank science.

Suffice it to say, I believe its mention in the Demographics of Argentina is plenty and that its inclusion in the country page (because it is a genetic study) is in bad taste.

Looking forward to any comments, Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify as to where in the source provided it mentions that the sampling was done only in public hospitals. Aside from that the sources stand the test of Wikipedia:Verifiability. CenterofGravity (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the study should stay out of the country article, and it should stay with the demographics article. There is a study about Black genetics in White Brazilians, but that study is not posted in Brazil, it's actually located in White Brazilian article. The same thing with the United States article. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the Ad hominem attack. It’s not uncommon to see such techniques being used when there’s nothing constructive to say. Now to claim that study is flawed due to the fact that it 1) was extracted in public hospitals (which many in Argentina avoid). Or because 2) it’s crank science is nothing BUT a subjective and rather unsubstantiated opinion. To have 90% of Argentineans listed as white is completely absurd, as there are several studies besides the one being used in the article, that conclude that the figures are way over blown. Why do you feel the necessity of keeping deceiving information within the scope of the demographics section?

Last but not least, not all articles about countries are identical nor standardized, neither should they be. And considering the ludicrous figure of 90% that some editors are trying to push, there’s got to be additional information to counter-balance that claim. Likeminas (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, as I said you are mixing Phenotype with Genotype. As per WP:BOLD, not to mention WP:CITE and WP:NPOV my statements are fully substantiated. Remember to refrain from personal attacks, editors should avoid using their own feelings or opinions in articles and statements must be cited.

According to a genetical level the average structure of the Argentine population contains 79.9% of European contribution, and 15.8% of Amerindian contribution[27][28] 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 used worldwide to stablish the ethnicity of a country[29], Argentina stands at 90% white or belonging to a European ethnic group[30].

Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fercho85, I'm not attacking anyone. Actually, I was personally attacked when I was called biased in one of the edit descriptions and when a different user explicitly accused me of editing based on bad faith. Nonetheless, I'll assume good faith from you and despite previous consensus agreements such as this [31]. I'll also assume you believe in objectivity and have taken your time to read, analyze and think thoroughly all of the arguments exposed in this discussion. I do think there’s a very strong argument for the inclusion of the study and user the Dúnadan did a very good job at explaining why it is relevant to the section. However, at this point, most NPOV arguments for and against the addition of the study have been exhausted. And I believe we have reached a point where some arguments are just Begging the question. So I propose we give the discussion a rest. Let it cool down a bit, and let other people have a say as well. As most of us probably already know, a mediation request has been filed and while the mediation is non-biding, it is important that we all participate in the process as it will give us a chance to finally reach a consensual agreement. Likeminas (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this issue has been brought up several times before. Some of us have discussed; other users prefer to simply delete. Reiterated deletions or reversions without reasons -in spite of being asked for them in a discussion- border at best on lack of etiquette, at worse on vandalism. I assume that the administrative -and impartial- prescribed actions for those cases should be warning the user first. If unsuccessful, then blocking the page or the user would also be appropriate.

It is so hard to follow your arguments, but they boil down, again to two points; and I am tired of repeating myself over and over, specially to a user who has not even cited a clear statement. The nature of my statements are fully backed up by WP:NPOV (I am including ALL versions, the ones you support, and the ones I support; According to Verifiability, you must provide an equally valid reputable source that discredits a valid reputable source. Your opinions must be substantiated and backed up by sources, otherwise they do not comply with the two policies you just cited.

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my arguments are hard to follow, unless of course, they make you feel uneasy, which I think, seems to be the case here. However, I've got to agree with you on the issue that it's really tedious to repeat oneself just because a user obstinately refuses to be more objective on the basis of data that contradicts personal views. As I said before, and judging from your contributions, it's very noticeable that you're trying very hard (despite evidence to the contrary) to hide all relevant information that indicates that Argentinians have some degree of Amerindian, including (possible vandalism) deletion of perfectly sourced material. See this [32] and this [33]

I must ask you to avoid using you're own feelings or opinions, stick to the facts and refrain from deleting relevant sourced material.

Since it's so hard for you to understand what I write, let me say it once again and hopefully it gets through this time. I will try to be as clear as a can.

It's not my opinion to say that 56% of Argentineans have some degree of Amerindian blood. It's not my opinion that most (if not all)genetics studies put the Amerindian figure higher than the 7% listed in the article

But, most importantly it's not my opinion that three different studies corroborate the fact that the "90% white" figure cited in the article is dubious, questionable and at the very least inflated.

All I'm arguing for (as I stated it in the Mediation request) is that; the article's section needs to at least include a brief summary that exposes the reader to different pieces of information regarding the demographics of Argentina. Because stating that Argentina's White population is 90% while obscuring several studies that cast doubt on that figure does not comply with WP:NPOV. If the reader would like go into more details regarding the studies, they can go to the Demographics of Argentina article, but a brief summary with other pieces of information (eg; genetics studies) that cast doubt on the census figures must be included, in order, to make it more impartial.

Now if you call the study controversial and question the methodology used to obtain the figures; you MUST back up your claims with references. It's quite ironic to see that you like to call out all those little rules, but conveniently forget to apply them to yourself.

Last but not least. DO NOT, and I repeat DO NOT edit the article as you did here [34]without reaching consensus.

Likeminas (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, I apologize for calling you biased. I assumed you were editing in bad-faith, so that is why I called you biased. I already had dealt with a bad-faith user before with this subject. That user used the study of its own purposes, posted it in many Argentine articles, and claimed Argentinians were Mestizos. Also, I always feel people are always picking on Argentines, when similar studies about US and Brazil are not used in the county's articles. I am really sorry for offending you.

Anyways, going back to the subject. I noticed something no one mentioned, and that is the Casta and the Limpieza de sangre. In the Casta, if a person is about 1/8 Indigenous, they were considered White. Some cases it was about 1/4, but most were considered Castizo. So If the average Argentine is 18.1% Indigenous and use the Casta, the average Argentine is White and consider to have "limpio del sangre" (have their blood clean). Argentines do fall as Castizo nor Mestizo. That is probably the high White population number. But I still agree that we should not have this study in the country aricle, b/c The US and Brazil have similar studies but don't have them in there country article. I should also mention, thanks to SamEV, the Census in every country is self-identification. Lets keep that in mind. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, please refrain from personal attacks, and show respect to your fellow users. I recommend that you read my comment again, since you missed the entire point. My statements are fully backed up by WP:NPOV and Verifiability, stop making spurious accusations, that will only kindle the animosity between us by making an otherwise educated debate a personal one.

It is you who have not been able to prove, that the ethnicity section needs to include a brief summary about genetic markers. I can engage in a logical argument to prove some of your points wrong, but that's not what we are supposed to do here. We are supposed to present cited statements backed up with reliable sources.

Cheers, --Fercho85 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Déjà vu? [35] Hahah... I was going to stay out of this debate, but this situation is absolutely hilarious. Fercho is using the exact same words I told him, when he refused to accept the reliable sources by simply "saying they were biased" and that they "had been contradicted" but failing to produce or provide the soruces to back up his claims! The exact same words. Please let us all take this discussion seriously by debating with strong arguments backed up with reliable sources, not simply misusing language and/or misquoting Wikipedia's policies. I wasn't planning of coming back after having continuously reverted unjustified deletions of perfectly sourced information—endorsed, may I say again, by the Ministry of Education and Science of Argentina—first by Fercho, but then by unrelenting anonymous users. But then, after I saw Fercho ignoring a previously agreed consensus and using my own arguments to do so (and even mis-quoting some of the same policies I quoted when debating with him!) I thought it would be wise for me to step in. I will simply summarize my position in five basic points: The genetic studies were conducted by the scientific community, endorsed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Argentina, and are fully verifiable and thus reliable; If there are additional studies that may seem to contradict the studies mentioned above, then they must also be fully verifiable and reliable; some users say that the genetic studies have been contradicted, by they have been unable to provide a link or a reference to back their claims; The only additional studies presented actually did not contradict the original study, but rather complemented it. Please read the discussion of 21 June 2008, or click on this link to follow the argumentation If there are any other equally reliable sources, then by WP:NPOV all sources and all opinions must be stated. 'Hiding information is not NPOV. Last but not least, arguing that the articles of United States and Brazil show nothing about genetics studies does not mean that this article shouldn't. If any user is interested in doing so, they can debate the pertinence of including them in the aforementioned articles as well.

--the Dúnadan 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, that’s a very funny and quite blatant plagiarisation Fercho85. Congratulations! Since you seem unwilling to engage in a constructive debate, much less interested in reaching a general consensus, all I’m going to ask from you - Fercho85- is to stop vandalizing the article by deleting perfectly sourced material. Thank you.

Lehoiberri No need to apologize. All I can tell you is that I’m not picking on the Argentineans. Take a look at my contributions. I definitely understand why people can react somewhat defensively to sensitive topics like this one. And while the debate might sometimes heat up, we should avoid -by all means necessary- to let our feelings and opinions interfere with our contributions. I’m not disputing that Argentineans have a very significant Castizo population. I think we can all agree on that. Nor I’m disputing the fact that Argentineans self-identify (despite the varying degree of Amerindian they might have) as of European descendant. I don’t disagree with you on that either. What I do not support, is the fact, that the studies are being completely disregarded, and not even a brief summary is being included. WP:NPOV require from us, that we expose all relevant and impartial information regarding a specific subject and if the census figures seem questionable, then, the appropriate counter-balance information should also be included. Lastly, I don’t support the analogy that because certain articles about other countries don’t include genetic studies, we should not include them here. As I said before; not all articles about countries are identical or standardized, neither should they be. As far as I'm concerned, there is no policy telling us to do so. Likeminas (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Psst, Lehoi, I never said that all censuses use self-ID.

Likeminas, lose the imperious tone, please. SamEV (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SamEV if you're going to attempt to be a mediator, please at least try to be an impartial one. Likeminas (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, this discussion would be more productive if positive and negative claims to include genetic studies were substantiated by clear NPOV. A consensus will be reach by assuming good faith from each other user and by reliable statements.

Nonetheless, most users have agreed not to include genetic studies on the section and it is still have not proved, why the ethnicity section needs to include a brief summary about genetic markers.

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This has gotten really frustrating.

Fercho85 I’ve assumed good faith from you despite your blatant disregard for a previously agreed consensus. But right now, you seem very inflexible and perhaps somewhat unwilling to see and analyze other people’s arguments. Did you take your time to read my input? Did you read the summary the Dúnadan has posted above? Please, don’t just conveniently ignore them!

Now, as far as the claim that most users agree to include the genetic study, this is what I found after READING all arguments*:

Disagree: Ale4117 Coldheartedman Fercho85 Sherlock4000 Lehoiberri SamEV Opinoso

Agree: Tanthalas39 Likeminas CenterofGravity the Dúnadan Vassyana echidna2007 AndeanRock

• Excluding IPs

*from sections: Amerindian and mestizo blood, Genetic Study, Mestizo Population & Argentina’s Ethnicity

In any case, and since you seem to like to cite Wikipedia’s policies, I assume you’re already familiar with the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy

Once again, I ask you to take your time and all read the arguments exposed. Read mine, and read the five points user the Dúnadan has summarized. It’s imperative that you take your time to read and analyze them thoroughly before you reply. Likeminas (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. I just changed my opinion! We, there is a significant number of people with obvious Amerindian admixture in Argentina. But, if the census claim over 90% as white, that's what we must follow. Genetic resources are not so important, since only a small number of people are submited to them. If we start to include genetic studies in the sessions about demography, will we also have to include that the population of Finland have 2% of black admixture?? Also, Eastern European countries, such as Russia, Poland, Ukraine or others such as Hungary have Asian admixture, due to the Barbarian invasions from Asia. The Finns' ancestry is 10% non-European and Hungarians' is 13%. Sami people are 50% non-European[36]. But nobody will include this information in the demography part of these countries' article. Opinoso (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Opinoso hit it on the head. The fact that a study exists doesn't mean it must be brought up wherever there's mention of Argentina's racial breakdown, or of White Argentines, as some editors seem to think. And yet, though I tend to think it should be left out (mostly because it has proven so obviously divisive), I'm mainly opposed to how the study's been, and still is presented in the article. Such information needs a special context, and I don't see it in the current presentation. Likeminas would do well to focus on that instead. SamEV (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A subject being divisive doesn’t mean it should be omitted. There are hundreds or perhaps thousands of topics within Wikipedia that divide contributors. There are the articles about Abortion, Euthanasia and Capital punishment just to name a few. Does their divisiveness prevent contributors from arguing and including relevant information to each one of them? If you have any reservations regarding the current presentation of the studies and wish to give them a more subtle twist, please feel free to do so. Likeminas (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It’s perfectly alright to change’s one mind. And thanks for making clear where you stand. You touch interesting points, perhaps in the same line as SamEV and Lehoiberri do. So let me take this opportunity to quickly address them, and after this intervention I promise I will take a Wikibreak from this discussion, which by the way, has carried on for a long time.

Relevance to the section.

While I see that the ethnicity section goes a long way to include information regarding immigrant Europeans (naming places of origin within Italy and Spain, other nationalities and dates of arrival) perhaps taking as much as 1/3 of the section. The mention of the admixture of the Argentinean people, on the other hand is (was) barely mentioned. So if there is significant number of people with obvious Amerindian admixture in Argentina as Opinoso puts it, why shouldn’t that be included in the article?

As far as I can see, the census figure of 90% white population remains in the section. I don’t see anybody arguing for its deletion. But if the census figures seem questionable, and there are other pieces of information that expose why they might seem questionable, then NPOV require from us to include them so that the section gives the reader a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

Articles in Wikipedia.

The analogy can be played both ways. Take the example of the geography sections of Chile & Argentina. Just because the article about Chile’s geography does not include, flora and fauna, does not mean the article about Argentina should not have it.

I believe I’ve said before that articles within Wikipedia are not identical or standardized. Especially when it comes to countries. Just take any two, and I’m quite sure you’ll find plenty of differences between them. After all, articles about countries are continuously evolving and don’t follow a strict format such as the CIA country profiles.

Finally and to quote Dúnadan fifth point Arguing that the articles of United States and Brazil show nothing about genetics studies does not mean that this article shouldn't. If any user is interested in doing so, they can debate the pertinence of including them in the aforementioned articles as well.

Likeminas (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Does their divisiveness prevent contributors from arguing and including relevant information to each one of them?" Yes! What makes you think it doesn't? But remember, not everyone is agreed that the genetic studies are relevant here... "If you have any reservations regarding the current presentation of the studies and wish to give them a more subtle twist, please feel free to do so." I'll wait till it's definitely decided whether they stay or go. SamEV (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we must improve the actual section, after all the vandalism and disruptive edits from anons the ethnicity section now stands as unencylopedic and rather incomprehensible. Still though I believe that the main problem here is the mixing of genetical terms. According to a genetical level the average structure of the Argentine population contains 79.9% of European contribution, and 15.8% of Amerindian contribution[37][38] 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[39]. It's 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 data.

Cheers,

--Fercho85 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite repeating myself thousands of times, Fercho, with all due respect, you are misreading and/or misunderstanding the tests. For starters the first study you cite sampled the city of Buenos Aires, not the entire country, which, of course, received the greatest percentage of European immigrants. The study does not sample nor analyzes the Amerindian contribution of the entire province of Buenos Aires or the rest of the provinces, the most notable exception being the northern province where the Amerindian contribution is significant, based on the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires, and even according to the same study you are citing (read second column of page 114 of the downloadable .pdf file). Secondly, in that same study (with the restricted sample to the city of Buenos Aires), all members of the sample had Amerindian contribution, of which the mean was 15.8%. That does not mean that this number represents the highest end of the rank, as you imply. Some had higher, some had lower contributions, all of which averaged at 15.8%. Even under the restricted area of the sample, some individuals in the city of Buenos Aires do have higher Amerindian contributions. Needless to say, the same applies for the entire country. Finally, your third link [40] can hardly be considered a serious source for genetic research. To conclude, the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires, I repeat myself, endorsed by the Government of Argentina and the Ministry of Science and Education, is the most comprehensive, in that all regions of the country were sampled. They estimated that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian ancestors on either lineage (which of course, could vary from 1 to 100%). If we apply the mean contribution of the city of Buenos Aires (but good logic tells us not to do that because the city of Buenos Aires is not representative of the entire country), then those 56% would have a mean of 15.8%. But, like I said, there is no reason to believe that the city of Buenos Aires and its population is representative of the entire country (much less of the guaraní population of Corrientes). --the Dúnadan 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: Can you fix that RFC template, please? SamEV (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Stick to what reliable sources state. Editors should avoid using their own feelings or opinions in articles. If there are multiple sources that provide multiple conclusions, they should be cited with the article presenting them in appropriate proportion. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having some degree of Amerindian ancestry does not make a person "non-white". Remember that human races do not exist, they are only social constructions, created by humans, based in physical apparence.

Most Argentines look white and are predominantly of recent European ancestry. Most have European grandparents or great-grandparents. Many of them may have Amerindian ancestry, and many may not even know about it. In some parts of Europe, the population have siginificant black African admixture (see article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe). A genetic study found 2% of black African admixture in Finland on the maternal side, even though the Finnish people are among the "whitest" people in Europe.

There's no "pure" human, we are genetically mixed. The fact that Argentine have Amerindian admixture does not make their population "non-white", because the native population of Europe is already mixed.

I have been to Argentina (Buenos Aires) and there are many people with Amerindian features there. But they are a minority compared to the Caucasian population.

Once I watched on TV the case of a Caucasian American man, who had relatives who were members of the Klu Klux Klan. He was submited to several genetic studies, and all them detected that his Y chromossome comes from a black African ancestor. Then, he was surprised, because he discovered that his racist relatives who were members of the Klu Klux Kan also had the genetic chromossome of a black ancestor.

"Races" are social constructions. There are racist people in Klu Klux Klan who do not even know they have black African admixture in them, and assume they are "100% white", which does not exist... If most Argentine see themselves as Whites, the fact that they have or not Amerindian admixture is not so important to be in this article. This information can be writen in another article about genetic studies in Argentine people. Opinoso (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. And I'm also inclined to the view that the study shouldn't be in this article. Only in the Demographics of Argentina subarticle. SamEV (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] = Mediation Cabal case

User:Likeminas has opened a Mediation Cabal case here. I'm posting the link to ensure that all parties are aware of it and can give their various takes on the situation. Ironholds (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Layout of Article

Hey everyone, Moebiusuibeom here, took the liberty of enhancing «image wise» the Layout of Article, witch suffered from

overcrowding and clutter of images side by side images sections with unrelated images unbalanced layout inconsistent sizing of images and broken up sections

Yes, I know, i did NOT inform of changes but it needed a quick fix, did the same for Buenos Aires.

I believe it now looks more encyclopedic, structurally balanced and "visually friendly", please!, any disagreements let me know.

Lets reposition Argentina as a was a good article nominee – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job; it looks a lot better. Although some section have to many pictures (like "Cities and Metropolitan Areas"), whereas other sections (most notably "Government") do not. I think taking 2 pics of the over-crowded sections and adding a couple on the empty sections (like the Casa Rosada for the Gov't Section) would be a good idea. Also, with the aim of repositioning Argentina as a "good article", I also suggest trying to find references or sources for the many [citation needed] all throughout the article. I believe there are even more claims that as of now have not been challenged and that also do need a source. I also think the history section should be restructured; it is almost entirely focused on the last 30 years; Argentina has a rich history dating back to Pre-Colombian times, and a more comprehensive review of the developments of the 19th and early 20th centuries would enhance the quality of that section and the article. That's my five cents. --the Dúnadan 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, the Argentine government should support Roman Catholicism. However, this does not imply that it is the official religion of the Argentine Republic, nor does it imply that people working in the government should have this faith.

Delete this passage. It's opinionated, argumentative, incorrect, and irrelevant. --76.217.92.133 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Argentine constitution does say that the government should support Catholicism, then I think it is relevant to the Politic section. I will do some research on the issue. --the Dúnadan 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. With all due respect, the layout of the article is a mess. Too much work should be done to raise the level of that article to a possible featured article in the future. I will do some research and propose some changes here before proceeding with editing. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the article needs to be summarised. It's simply too big. Reelvant information should be inserted in specific articles.--Mhsb (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mestizo population??????????

I just don't understand WHY nothing is said about the large mestizo population in the northern provinces of Salta, Jujuy, Tucumán, Catamarca, Santiago del Estero and elsewhere. Nothing! Not a single word!

Plus, I still wonder why on earth the CIA World Factbook is still cited as the source for the 97%-white figure. As if the CIA Factbook was the sacred Bible on statistical information around the world! Why not give the CIA the benefit of the doubt? After all, let us remember how well and accurately the CIA predicted and prevented 9/11!!

I don't want to get political, but I am still amazed to read information in Wikipedia or elsewhere stating that Argentina is an all-white country. And what really OUTRAGES me is the fact that, whenever people from the northern provinces move to the large cities in the east-central part of the country, they are called bolivianos or paraguayos, a blatant evidence that many people in Buenos Aires, Rosario and other places are still in denial about the existence of a large mestizo-Amerindian population in Argentina.

Argentina is a predominantly white country. That is a FACT! What I call into question is the 97% white figure, and the absence of information in this article about the large mestizo population in the north.

By the way, I am from Salta, so be carefull with what you reply.--190.137.76.184 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the anon in that there is a large mestizo population in northern Argentina. Unfortunately, there are very few reliable resources in Latin America in regards to ethnography. Latin American countries do not classify population according to race or ethnicity, and the few that do - recently Argentina attempted to do so - base their statistics on self-ascription... considering Latin American colonial history based on caste, and the intermingling of Spanish settlers with native population, it is no surprise that the great majority declared to be "white". That is why I believe information on Amerindian admixture, based on genetic tests, are informative and should not be deleted from the article. Maybe we need to do a more comprehensive research on all printed and electronic reliable sources. --the Dúnadan 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, considering the fact that you are from the northern part of the country is normal that you react to this situations like this, but what you are claiming is pure regionalism. Though it is true that Salta, Jujuy and Catamarca have a large mestizo population, you have to consider that the mestizo ethnic group in Argentina is a minority, and the provinces that recieved the biggest part of the european immigration were Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, Entre Rios and La Pampa in which they concentrate more than the 60% of the total population of the country. Please stick to what reliable sources state, editors should avoid using their own feelings or opinions in articles.

Dunadan, again the genetic study is an irrelevant item in the article, the ethnicity section is not a genetical sample of different countries if not a quick view of the main ethnic groups of the country to develop. Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the genetic study irrelevant to the article? Because you said so? It is, by far much more relevant than self-ascription, and it fully complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Other than your particular dislike of the findings of the research, there is no compelling reason to reject it or to deem it as irrelevant. Your appreciation of the "Provinces with European Immigration" (perhaps, La Pampa Gringa), is still that, a personal appreciation, in the same level as the anonymous appreciation of the large mestizo population. After all, you'd just need to go to downtown Córdoba to find mestizos. A Genetic source outranks both your appreciations, in that it is a reliable source. Like you said, we should stick to reliable sources, and if they are scientific and not self-ascribed, they are even better. --the Dúnadan 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fercho85, here the Anonymous User again (some time ago I felt like subscribing under the name "Andeanrock," but then I forgot to reply to the confirmation mail on time, I think I'll try again). My assersion is NOT "pure regionalism." Let us remember that:

The combined population of the northernwestern provinces (Salta, Jujuy, Tucumán, Catamarca, Santiago and La Rioja) as stated in the article Provincias Argentina, of the Spanish language version of Wikipedia, account for 4,466,190 people, or more than 10% of the country. Over the last 4 decades, MILLIONS of northerners have moved southwards, making themselves even more visible now in the large cities of the pampa region. You can check that yourself, if you go to census data and check the percentage of population in Buenos Aires Province who were born outside Buenos Aires and who are not foreigners. Self-ascription is GROSSLY subjective. I know people in my home province who, despite having dark skin and Andean features, would never openly declare themselves to be Amerindians, because of fear of being discriminated against. There are A LOT of famous Argentinians who would qualify as mestizo: folk musician Jaime Torres, folk musician Mercedes Sosa, football players such as Riquelme and Ariel Ortega, football coach Ramón Díaz, deceased boxer Carlos Monzón, etc.

I don't want to turn this into a opinion war, because I'm really tired of discussing this with porteños who have never set a foot beyond the Buenos Aires city limits and yet they claim Argentina is 97% white. I have already had a hell of an argument about this on YouTube (by the way, watch this vid: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7_yt8e3P6rE) and I'm really tired. The article is now protected, so I'm completely powerless to make the changes it needs. And unless the censors in Wikipedia come to their senses, I guess the article on Argentina will continue showing an unbalanced view of what Argentine society is like.

Greetings from Salta - Thank God the articles on the provinces are not protected (yet)--201.252.223.167 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AndeanRock you are absolutly free to express your opinion here, nevertheless next time you make an statement please back up it with sources. --Fercho85 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan, my opinion is that the genetical studies (not only one) are irrelevant to the article because the ethicity section as it is in every country, deals about the main ethnic groups of the country it is not a genetical sample of it. Though they fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability they are just misplaced, and are well stated here [41] Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Ethnicity, as a field of demographics, in turn, a social science, is complemented and sustained by genetics. In lack of reliable ethnic classifications in Argentina, genetic studies are informative and are rightly placed. Let me ask you, why would a genetic sample be misplaced in a section called "Demographics" [of Argentina] but "well stated" in an article called, "Demographics of Argentina"? If they are well stated in one, they are perfectly suitable in the other. --the Dúnadan 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to make a comment about this issue, since lately in the Argentine American article is being changed by a user who is also trying to "Whitenize" Mexico's Demographics. To AndeanRock, I think it is you who hasn't set out a foot outside of Salta. I may not live in Argentina, but I have visited the country many times, and I have set my foot out of Buenos Aires (both the city and the province). I have been to the Patagonia, Cordoba, Entre Rios, Rosario, and Misiones, and these Places I have been I see that the majority of the population is White. I do doubt the 97% figure, but I think the white population is around 80%. And one more thing, AndeanRock, you are so wrong when it comes to the CIA and 9/11. The CIA did predict 9/11 was going to happen, but it was the Bush Administration who view the intelligence as not serious. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Also, why only cite the UBA Study, why don't you cite the other studies, like the University of California Study, which says that majority of Argentines (78% in the UC Study) are European. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

THEN WHY DON'T YOU JUST CHANGE THAT RIDICULOUS 97% WHITE FIGURE? A lot of Wikipedia users have been wrestling with that figure ever since it was first written, some two years ago, just check at the history of the Argentina talk page! Only a daltonic could state that Argentina is 97% white! It doesn't take genious to realize there is a sizable mestizo minority in the country. Most people who have traveled around the country put the figure at 80%, which I agree with. By the way, I've been to Salta, Jujuy, Tucuman, Santiago del Estero, Córdoba, Buenos Aires (the city and the province), Neuquén and Western Rio Negro, so don't you dare tell me I don't know the country.

As for the University of California Study, I had never heard about it, till now ... but ... then (I wonder AGAIN) ... if there is a study which puts the white figure at 78%, why is it not mentioned in this article??? Why does it say that the white population ranges between 89-97%?

All this is soooo absurd, really. --190.137.229.115 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, I have NEVER meddled with the Argentine American article. First time I have ever heard of such article.--190.137.229.115 (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not accused you of meddled on the Argentine American page, Andean Rock, if you believed I did accused you of vandalism, I am sincerely sorry. I was a harsh towards you by saying you haven't been out of Salta, if you were offended, again I am sincerely sorry. The reason I mention Argentine American article is because there is a user, not naming names, who is Mexican, who is trying to "Whitenize" Mexico's demographics while in the same time trying to, don't know how to say this, "De-Whitenize" Argentines. One thing I learn being Argentine (actually half-Argentine) born, raised, and living in the United States is that there are some Mexicans who don't like Argentines because they are white. Sad but True. This is why I mention the article, and also another reason is that another user began harassing me because I removed those edits.

Hello, may name is Ricardo and I am from México. I would like to add a comment to this discussion, especially for those who are not Latin American with the purpose to help them understand the origin of this debate on Argentina.

Latinamerican countries share many cultural things, and among them, there is a special idiosyncrancy related to skin colour and ethnic origins. During the colonial period, the conquistadors taught native people that white men were superior, and that native people and their customs were in a lower level. All of this eurocentrism has lasted until our days. For this reason, many people consider people who have a whiter appearance as "more beautiful" or "more educated". Not very intelligent, but true. Argentina received a massive migration from european countries, that is true. But not all of the natives were killed.Many remained relegated to the north and the borders and many of them go to the big cities in search for better opportunities. Even in my country, which is very far from the southern cone, many argentine have come to get a better job. Many of them have visible mestizo appearance, but when asking about their origins, they always claim having a european grandparent. Yes, to all those non Latinamerican readers, many Latinamerican people feel ashamed about their origin, that is why many claim european origin and try by all means to erase their native american roots (and I include my country, México).

And for this person who wrote that some mexicans don't like Argentine because they are "white", let me tell you that in México many european tourists come to visit our resorts, our beaches and our cities, and we like them, and they are real whites. I am a german language teacher, and I am in contact to many Germans, blondes and whites, and believe me, we like them. There are also Brits, scots and Irish who come, who are completely white and we like them. So that claim that some mexican don't like argentines because they are "white" is false, there are more white Brazilians than the whole population of Argentina and we like them, we consider them our brothers. Some Mexicans don't like Argentine, because they make racist comments to us (not because they are allegedly whites) with their comments, behaviour and arrogance, they really believe that being "white" is better, and the rest of Latinamericas, or Indios, as many Argentines call us, are less.

I hope these comments help understand a bit the origin of this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.231.237 (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing you and I agree is that the 97% is quite ridiculous, and the population is probably around 80%.Lehoiberri (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, for going off topic, this is just a stupid question. I am confused with the word Porteño, does it refers to the people of the Capital only, or does it refer to both the people of the Capital and people of the Provence of Buenos Aires? Lehoiberri (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Porteño (plural: porteños) is the common adjective used for people or things from Buenos Aires City. The word porteño means, roughly translated, "people from the port." People from Buenos Aires Province are referred to as bonaerenses.--190.226.0.35 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This debate is going nowhere and moving towards unnecessary and unjustified ad hominem arguments. I don't care if a user is Argentine, half-Argentine, half-Mexican, half-Spaniard or half-Japanese for that matter. And Wikipedia should not care about personal perceptions. This encyclopedia is build through reliable sources. So please leave aside all conspiracy theories of "De-Whitenizing" [sic], and whether Mexicans "hate Argentines" for being "white", and let's focus on discussing content and reliability.

I have said on previous occasions both in this article and in many other articles in Latin America, that ethnicity, for this particular region of the world, is a complex issue. Unlike other "places of White settlement" (after all, Latin America, regardless of the country, was a place where "Whites" settled, since the Conquest and Colonization), White Settlement in Latin America had a caste system in which race intermingling was the norm, not the exception, including Argentina (sources abound, but one, bought in Buenos Aires, I have handy, Breve Historia de la Argentina written by Argentine historian José Luis Romero, by the Fondo de Cultura Económica, ISBN 950-557-614-5). Spaniards, Portuguese, French and Italians, unlike British in North America, South Africa and Australia, had no problem taking Amerindian women for wives. Even if some countries, like Argentina and Uruguay, received a much larger contingent of European immigrants than say Peru, Chile, Ecuador or Mexico, the Amerindian admixture is still present in the majority of the population, as the many genetic studies have proven time after time. I fail to understand why some users say that putting this information on genetics is "against" [sic] Argentines. Why? After all, it is true. Is having Amerindian admixture offensive or inferior to "pure European"?

--the Dúnadan 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan, one criticism about you is that you only cite one study, and you use that study an ultimate fact. The UBA Study has many flaws. There are other studies about Argentine Genetics that contradict the UBA study, but it seems you push those studies aside. Since you are ignoring the University of California study that I mention and later post "the Amerindian admixture is still present in the majority of the population, as the many genetic studies have proven time after time", it looks like you're applying your own personal views. I do want to know what is you opinion about other studies that contradict the UBA study? Lehoiberri (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lehoiberri, this issue has been debated so many times before, that I find it disappointing that you and/or other users, fail to read not only the comments presented on the previous debates, but also you fail to read the same sources you are citing and vehemently defending and presenting as contradictory. It is been a while since we last debated this, so I will repeat the arguments, once again, assuming good faith, just for the record.

The research papers of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) do not, I repeat, do not contradict each other, because each one of them is analyzing different things: The study conducted by UC Davis, took 94 individuals and assessed the Amerindian, European and African contribution, individually. Amongst the sample (94 individuals), the mean Amerindian contribution of the 94 individuals was 19.4%, with a (quote) "large variance", a variance that ranged from (quote), "1.5 to 84.5% in the 94 Argentine subjects". So, what does this mean? It means that all of the Argentines selected in this statistical sample, I repeat, all Argentines in the sample had Amerindian ancestors. (All means 100%). Why? Because the individual with the lowest Amerindian contribution had a positive contribution of 1.5%. If at least one Argentine in the sample had been "pure European", then the lowest range in the Amerindian contribution would have been 0%. (Quite logical isn't it?). But this doesn't really matter, because the intent of this study was not to measure how many Argentines had Amerindian ancestors (in fact, all of the individuals in the sample had Amerindian ancestor). The intent of the study was to assess the average Amerindian contribution on the average Argentine.[42]. And they concluded than on average, an Argentine would have 19.4% Amerindian blood based on their sample. This does not mean that 19.4% of Argentines have Amerindian ancestors, nor does it mean that 78% are European; this means that on average, an Argentine would have a 19.4% Amerindian contribution in his/her genes and a 78% of European contribution in his/her genes.

The white contribution to black Americans is even higher: also ALL Afro-Americans have white genes and the percentage of white genetic contribution to the Black American is over 20%... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.210.74 (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires, does not measure the extent of the Amerindian contribution. UBA's study is measuring, how many —or rather, the percentage— of all Argentines that had at least one Amerindian ancestor, regardless of the individual or average Amerindian contribution. This particular genetic study was the most complete, in that the sample was made up of individuals of nine provinces (most prior genetic studies in Argentina only sampled individuals in Greater Buenos Aires). UBA concluded that (quote) "more than 50% [...] exhibit mitochondrial haplogroups characteristic of the Amerindian populations; 52% in the Central Region, 56% in the South-South Western Region and 66% in the North-North Eastern region [...]" and that the population in which the Amerindian contribution was present on both (quote) "paternal and maternal lineages [i.e. ancestries] is restricted to 10% [of the population]". What does this mean? That on average, more than 50% of the Argentine population had at least one Amerindian ancestor, either through their father's or mother's lineage [and 10% on both lineages]. How large is the Amerindian contribution in this 50% of Argentines? [i.e. one ancestor out of how many, and how far back in time? how large is the Amerindian contribution amongst this 50% of Argentines that do have Amerindian ancestors?] Well, that is not the intent of this study. They simply concluded that 50% of all Argentines had Amerindian blood, which could range from 0.1 to 99.9%. But UBA does not try to measure the average Amerindian contribution on the average Argentine, but the percentage of Argentines that have Amerndian ancestors, and it was estimated, through statistical techniques, that it was more than 50% [i.e. the majority] of the population.

So, in reality, the two studies do not contradict each other, but they rather complement each other. The first one measures the average Amerindian contribution on the average Argentine, and the second one measures the percentage of Argentines that have at least one Amerindian ancestor (regardless of the extent of the contribution). I hope this is clear, but I'd be more than happy to expound, if necessary.

Let me conclude, again, by quoting three remarks from the UBA researchers themselves in the document endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina, available here:

"Starting in the mid-nineteenth century, with the creation of a National Constitution that promoted immigration, a true avalanche from Europe and Asia Minor was produced [sic]. With the migratory barrage, the "new Argentines" pretend[ed] to impose the false conception of a European country, supported in part with the europenizing ideas that were imposed in our country during the nineteenth century." (bold mine) "[Presidents] Rosas' (1827-1832) and Roca's (1870-1880) Campaigns to the Desert, besides seizing [the] territories from the original peoples [i.e. Amerindians], they pretended to make an ethnic cleansing, [in which] Roca boasted in 1877 that '... not a single Indian crosses then La Pampa'. The negation [sic] of the Aboriginal peoples, associated in part with the interest [...] in their land [...] caused Argentina to self-proclaim, without solid bases as the European country of Latin America. A century was needed for science to produce the objective tools capable of demonstrating how false this affirmation was" (bold mine). After presenting the genetic researches and as a conclusion, "[t]he information herein summarized is based in scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the purported belief of the European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentinian 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 in the current constitution of the Argentine population. These type of researches tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and nondiscriminatory way." (bold mine).

So, in reality, I do not base my comments on "my personal opinion", nor in my "personal appreciation". I am no geneticist, so I cannot claim (and neither can you) that UBA or UC Davis's studies are "flawed". Moreover, the fact that the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology endorses this document, and the fact that both UBA and UC Davis complementary study, are published in international science journals are proof enough that both are valid scientific researches.

--the Dúnadan 07:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dunadan :)

I think you are just been paranoic, according to your point of view I have made a conclusion: You think there is a "conspiracy" to hide the mestizo population in Argentina. Please take a look at conposicion etnica de Argentina in the article in spanish and you will realize that there is no such thing. Besise from your point of view we should add genetic studies to every single article of the countries of the americas because for example the US has a genetical study that shows the african admixture in the country[43] and so does Chile[44]. I agree with you in something, there was a process of invisivilation in Argentina but not of mestizo people if not of africans. My point is that as I said the citation though it is well sourced and enndorsed by the UBA is missplaced and should be removed to prevent the confussion of the users. Ethnicity reffers to ethnic groups not genetical studies, that is to say White, Black, Amerindian/Mestizo, African and Asian. I know that you want to show that Argentina isn't as white as it is shown but by doing this you are confusing the poor user who needs information. I still dont know why you insist so much to "De-Whitenize" (as Lehoberri said) the population of Argentina and please Don't be a fanatic! Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks (i.e. paranoic), and show respect to your fellow users. Keep this debate clean. I recommend that you read my comment again, since you missed the entire point. And also, please read Lehoiberri's comment as well. To start with, I was not the user that tried to De-Whitenize Argentina; he refers to another user. Secondly, I am not speaking about a conspiracy theory to "hide mestizo". I referred to Lehoiberris "theory" that all Mexicans hate Argentines "because they are White" (and again, he referred to anotheruser who, I suppose, is Mexican, not me). So, please, read the entire contributions first before coming up with spurious and unacceptable accusations in an otherwise educated debate. Please, also review the two genetic studies cited above. Please feel free to read the entire summary page, not endorsed by UBA (you also missed that point), but endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Argentine Government). Please read the last three remarks, again, written by UBA, and endorsed by the Ministry of Education of the Government. Last but not least, please read some sources on ethnography. Genetics is the natural science that serves as the foundation for ethnography, as a social science. The UBA, and the UC Davis reports are not misplaced, at all. It does not cause confusion; it is rather informative. Last but not least, feel free to add studies of admixture in all articles of all countries in the world. This would be specially informative for Latin American countries, in which—I repeat myself—White Settlement was not based on isolation but on racial intermingling that constructed a complex caste system, Argentina included (as cited above with Romero's book). Due to the complex ethnographic reality of Latin America, in contrast to other places of White Settlement—predominantly British—marked by social barriers that prohibited intermingling, admixture studies are rightly placed and informative when describing ethnicity and origins in Latin America. For example, they have led to the recognition of the large African contribution in eastern states of Mexico and Peru, otherwise ignored. And like UBA's report say, they lead to building a new and truer identity for LA countries. Cheers, --the Dúnadan 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree the 97% White is not correct. I have been to Buenos Aires myself and I have seen lots of people with Amerindian features.

I wonder, if I saw a lot of them in Buenos Aires (the most European region of Argentina) these parts in Northern Argentina must have many more people with Amerindian features. Opinoso (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan, you are twisting my words. I said some Mexicans not all, so stop your spin. Anyways let me go back to your holy grail. After reading your post and reading the website you provided, now your precious study is now contradicting Argentinian history.

1. There is one thing you wrote that I found shocking what you referred about the Conquest of the Desert. "...they pretended to make an ethnic cleansing". I have been called racist, but I have never denied a genocide. I made sure if that website you cited did say this, but you are right that website, sadly, does say that. I know its actually controversial in Argentina to classify the Conquest of the Desert as a Genocide. I'm not the only one who believes that the Conquest of the Desert was Ethnic Cleansing, Indigenous Rights Groups in Argentina and Leftist Historians also agree that the Conquest of the Desert is a Genocide. If you believe this study is flawless and agree with the summary of that study, then that mean all those Indigenous rights groups are either overexaggerating the genocide or they are outright lying. Between the descendant of the victims and a group of people who are educated in the field of history versus some rich Scientists who education of history is unknown, I choose the victims and the historians.

2. If this study is flawless, that means majority of Argentines are descendants of the colonial population. But last time I remember, Argentines are not descendants of the colonial population. Why? Because by the early 1900s, Argentina population was majority of Foreign-born. You and your study is contradicting the historical immigration data of Argentina. So according to this study, the government made up the records? I don't think so.

3. On a previous post, you wrote that Italians had no problems with marring indigenous people. I remember reading about the history of Italian immigrants in America, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia, one thing comes up that contradicts what you wrote. Italian immigrants were notorious for looking down on marriages between an Italian and a non-Italian. The immigrant generation would no way marry someone who was not one of them, so would their children. But it is different when it comes to the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Also, during the time of the Italian immigrants, in fact most immigrant, came to Argentina, interracial marriage was already looked down upon in Argentine society. Also, if you include the Germans, the Slavs, and the Jews, they were more culturally notorious than the Italians.

4. If this study is flawless, and contradict Argentina's population history; That means the White population of Uruguay and Southern Brazil are not purely white. Since Argentina's population history is similar to Uruguay and Southern Brazil.

5. If the study is flawless, and most Argentines have indigenous genetics, but then why should they be considered mestizo, or even castizo. If most Argentines are from 10% to 1% indigenous then why should they be called mestizo (which means half indigenous) or Casitzo (which mean quarter indigenous). In the US, if a White American is 1% black, that person is not biracial, that person is White. So why should Argentines be called mestizos? This is what I took issue in Argentine American, that Mexican user I talk about posted this study and wrote "... and many Argentines posses Amerindian ancestry, and are either Mestizo or Castizo". 1% is meaningless, they are not mestizos or even castizos. If you are 99% White, you are White.

I have been to Argentina many times. Majority of Argentines look White, in fact Mediterranean, not Mestizo. This is because most Argentines are either Italian, Spanish, or Both. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you argue that the study is flawless, but the study, flawless or not, stands because, by being published in Academic journals, and endorsed by the government of Argentina, fully complies with all the requirements of WP:Verifiability. Why do I say this? Because the only way you can disprove the study (this, and the many others presented) is not with your opinion (your five points above), but by presenting equally valid reputable sources that prove that the first valid reputable source is wrong. You haven't done that. I can engage in a logical argument to prove some of your points wrong, but that's not what we are supposed to do here. We are supposed to present reliable sources. Until then... If you want to know my opinion, I really don't care what a person looks like. To call someone white because he looks white is an unencyclopedical as saying that the sun is as big as the moon because that is the way they "look" to us. That is why genetics and biology play an important role in ethnography. How much Amerindian contribution is necessary to be classified as Mestizo? I don't know. Never have I read that it is supposed to be 50-50%, and if you are 51% then you are White? Ludicrous. That, of course, will take us to admixture genetic studies, something Fercho wanted to avoid. But I do not intent to classify Argentine population as "Mestizo". That is beyond my intentions. What we can do here in Wikipedia, which will be perfectly compliant with the policies and rules of the community, would be to cite each reliable and verifiable source: CIA, Britannica and the census, which claim that Argentina is mostly White (what they "look" like, as you said). Then we cite the genetic studies that claim that that European genetic contribution on the average Argentine is 78%, and that 56% of Argentines were proven to have at least one Amerindian ancestor. No classifications of what a "Mestizo" is nor that Argentina is "Mestizo". We are citing reliable sources, relevant to the section, and we are saying simply what they are saying, nothing more, nothing less. And please, review other genetic studies and other sources (not opinions), I am not setting this genetic study as the "paramount" revelation. I have even brought to the discussion table books on the History of Argentina, written by Argentine historians themselves! --the Dúnadan 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Dúnadan asked the million dollar question: what is the definition of mestizo. In the caste system, it was 50/50, and 75/25 would have been castizo, and technically you would be just white again even if you have 1/8 Amerindian. Does this hold true anymore? I'm not qualified to answer this a question because it's more a matter of opinion and social structure. I would say that the figures mean that X percent are predominantly European, not necessarily everyone one of those 97% is of "pure" European ancestry. Remember also that many Spaniards and Italians have darker, Mediterranean features which can be confused with an Amerindian "appearance". Depending on what type of genetic study is done, it does not always paint a full picture. If they're testing the Y-DNA or the Mt-DNA, remember that these are passed down by only 1 ancestor out of thousands of recent ancestors. So someone can have a European haplogroup and still be predominantly Amerindian and vice versa. And just as others have stated, any census information will be self-identity, so someone may be very well aware that his great-grandfather was mestizo, but he may self-identify as white. Who are we to tell someone how they should self-identify? Kman543210 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with you Kman. That is why I do not intend neither to define Mestizo, nor to make judgement values of the sources cited. All the sources presented (either a self-identification census, a CIA figure, or a research paper on genetics) are informative. All sources are being cited and given their due weight. Since all are relevant and relaible, all should be cited. Judgement values of the sources and the conclusions that are drawn out of those sources should not be included (and in fact they are not included) in the text as it stands right now (please read the section in question). That is why I never intended to classify the majority of Argentine's as "Mestizos". Let's not digress from our discussion. Sources are being presented and they are being challenged. I argue that sources cannot be challenged and refuted with mere opinions. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan as I said even if they were supported by the UBA and endorsed by the Ministry of Education of the Government of Argentina they are still missplaced. Even if we take into account the genetical studies as a way to show the argentine demographics, you would be wrong because as you said you are not scientist so you cannot define who is mestizo and who is not. I invite you to take a look at [45]Composicion etnica de Argentina which as a matter of fact refers to the argentine ethnography in a very proper way:

"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..."

This issue has been discussed several times before and you have always contradicted every single point of view from other users by gaming the system so please as a contributor to wikipedia this time Be Bold and as said Don't be a fanatic. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system? Do you know the type of accusations you are making? Have you actually read the links you are citing like WP:GAME, WP:BOLD and WP:FANATIC? Go ahead and read them, so you know what kind of thinks you are asking. Gee... stop making spurious accusations, that will only kindle the animosity between us by making an otherwise educated debate a personal one. Who has contradicted me? Who has brought reliable sources to the discussion, besides me? If you wish, I would be more than happy to Request for Mediation. Please, I ask you, once again, bring reliable sources to the table. It is you who have not been able to prove, with reliable sources that ethnography is not sustained by genetic biology. I repeat, the statements are not misplaced. And the Spanish Wikipedia is not a valid source to cite. :--the Dúnadan 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fercho85: I think no one here is trying to De-Whitenize the population of Argentina, it's just the 97% white figure is, to say the least, PREPOSTEROUS. And I really don't care if I sound paranid to you (according to your definition of paranoia) but if you look at the history of the Argentina article in Wikipedia, it does seems there is a concerted effort by some Wikipedia users to make the Argentine demographics to look as white as possible and/or to belittle the ethnic minorities as much as possible. Just use your finger, click and take a look at what the Argentina article looked like 4 months ago, 8 months ago, 1 year ago, two years ago, etc. Mentions of the mestizo population in the northern provinces were deleted over and over again, and on MANY occasion the article was protected to prevent users from the provinces to add any mention whatsoever of minorities in Argentina. Doesn't it sound like censorship? This is an excerpt form José Luis Romero's Las ideas políticas en Argentina. Colección Popular Nº 147. Chapter VI: La conformación de la Argentina aluvial. Page 172: "Ya en 1889 Buenos Aires pasaba el medio millón de habitantes, y duplicó su población en menos de veinte años, (....) aunque no conservó ese ritmo, siguió creciendo en forma siempre desproporcionada al resto del país. En ella se había concentrado, precisamente, la mayor proporción de extranjeros y se había desarrollado la mayor actividad económica. Pero, por un proceso correlativo, las regiones interiores -y sobretodo la noroeste- acusaban un estancamiento en su població, índice de su estancamiento económico. Allí no se había producido sino en muy pequeña escala la localización de las masas inmigratorias y se mantenían los grupos criollos con sus caracteres tradicionales. Así se comenzó a insinuar una considerable diferenciación entre esa zona y la del litoral, diferenciación que había de constituir pronto una de las peculiaridades sociales del país." --AndeanRock (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Dunadan, can you stop twisting my words. This is the second time. You obviously don't practice what you preach, when you told Fercho85 to read the prior post. Dunadan, WHERE THE HELL DID I EVER SAID "IF YOU'RE 51% THEN YOUR WHITE". What I said was IF YOU'RE 1% INDIGENOUS (MEANING 99% WHITE) YOU ARE NOT MESTIZO. Please read my posts well. Since debating you about this means you are going to take my words and manipulated them. Then I am ending my part of the discussion. Seriously, your actions are frustrating me. I might say something that will get me blocked from Wikipedia. So everyone, you can continue debating, but I'm leaving. I have an article to work on. Ciao. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, when I said "Never have I read that it is supposed to be 50-50%, and if you are 51% then you are White? (ending in a question mark), I meant that never have I read that to be a Mestizo, you are supposed to be exactly 50-50%. If by that sentence you understood, "Lehoiberri, you said so-and-so", then I apologize. If that particular sentence provoked any undesired animosity, I apologize. I rather we focus on the many points and arguments that have been made, than in a particular purpoted "manipulation" of words. [Gee... this discussion has had quite a few strong words: manipulate, fanatic, etc., let's tone it down a little]. Sorry to see you leave, but the discussion is still open, and you are more than welcome to return, should you want to debate the arguments exposed above. --the Dúnadan 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask Dúnadan to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and to stop bothering other users. Opinoso (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC) The comment above by Opinoso, seems to be more related with the attitude portrayed at Talk:Latin America. It is surprising that when I said the words "apologize" for a misunderstanding three times in the above sentence, Opinoso calls it "bothering other users" and "not assuming good faith". I kindly ask him to read the entire discussion, and to comment on the topic at hand, should he wish to engage in the debate constructively. --the Dúnadan 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have recently improved the ethnicity section of the article with the inclusion of the genetical study. I hope this edit can finally solve the issue with this section. Please if anybody disagrees with this edit let me know. Regards,--Fercho85 (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem. Not with the section, per se, but with the fact that after you improved the section, I improved it even more (some sentences simply did not sound encyclopedic or had weasel words); however you reverted me and called your editions , again, "improvement". --the Dúnadan 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Again, all my recent improvements are being reverted by Fercho, including changes to sentences that simply do not sound encyclopedic. Moreover, there is no need not to cite the findings of a scientific study. And we are not citing the entire study, just the main findings. The "entire" study includes findings by region in the country. --the Dúnadan 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

dude, i don't understand this large arguement that can be reduced to: argentinians are mostly white, with a sizable mestizo minority. is there so difficult to accept that a country in south america can be mostly white? is that insulting to the rest of the south american nations? people consider new zealand mostly a white nation and it have more native blood than argentina. and no one argues that, cause it seems acceptable that new zealand is mostly white. i think that even the ones trying to show their liberality should think twice cause they are now the ones discriminating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.0.158 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Argentinians are NOT "white", nor are the Italians or Spaniards or French. The latter are "mediterranean" or "latin." "White" is understood to be germans, english or norse people...at least according to the KKK types that seem to dominate Argentine society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.160.23.2 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That´s ridiculous. Stephen Oppenheimer book "The Origins of the British - A Genetic Detective Story" (2006) demonstrates that the gens of the overwhelming majority of the British (from 60% in England to over 90% in Ireland) come from SPAIN. Just under 30% of English gens come from Germany, hahaha. And, in the case of Ireland, under 10%. So the British are basically Spanish with some Nordic admixture. Read the book and the genetic studies.

No mentioning of Africans, History and Slavery ?

Alright I understand that Argentina is a predominantly white south american country with stong european culture, but we cannot forget about the black people who are still living in Argentina, although they make up less than 1% of the population. They also should be mention for there bravery for fighting along side with the spanish aginst Paraguay in the War Triple Alliance in the 19th century. I have always been struck by the fact that Tango has strong African origins, why is this not mentioned?. many white counties like England, Portugal, Spain, metions black people in there country, why not argentina, whats up with that? What is wrong with putting information about blacks in Argentina's history books and Demographic? Is it some kind of law not to mention Blacks in argentina are something? I can't even imagine what the blacks have to go through in everyday life living in a country that see itself has European. It's a Shame. Even though they make less 1% of the population, they also played a role in Argentina's History. -- Cup22 6:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for melodrama. Find a reliable source and add the appropriate material. I don't think it's a case of excluding it purposely; no one else has probably had enough knowledge to include it, so go ahead and do so. Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Make sure not to talk about the topic with undue weight. As you said yourself, it's less than the 1% of the population. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cup22... cool down man! The fact of what happend to African' is a puzzle to many historians. Check this out...

Scholars have long pondered the "disappearance" of people of African descent from Argentina, long considered South America's "whitest" nation. A 1973 article in Ebony asked, "what happened to Argentina's involuntary immigrants, those African slaves and their mulatto descendants who once outnumbered whites five to one, and who were for 250 years 'an important element' in the total population, which is now 97 percent white?"

One history book calls the country's lack of self-identifying black people "one of the most intriguing riddles in Argentine history," while another notes that "the disappearance of the Negro from the Argentine scene has puzzled demographers far more than the vanishing Indian." Was the Afro-Argentine community annihilated by disease and war, or absorbed into the larger white community?

This last phrase "absorbed into the larger white community" is probably why you wont see black skin but rather "trigueña" as they are called. The thing is that they include african, amerindians, etc.

You may also be interested in reading this

'Durante la Gobernación de Juan Manuel de Rosas pareció verificarse un cierto auge de la comunidad negra de Buenos Aires, que rondaba alrededor del 30% de la población total. El Gobernador asistía regularmente con su familia a los candombes negros. Esta era una de las escasas formas culturales que les era permitida manifestar a los africanos y sus descendientes, los afroargentinos, en tanto que los actos de resistencia eran cruelmente castigados.

Datos del período colonial revelan cifras que hoy pueden parecer increíbles: en el censo de 1778 se consigna que en el noroeste argentino, en la zona de Tucumán el 42% de la población era negro; en Santiago del Estero la proporción era del 54%. En Catamarca, para esa misma época, el porcentaje de la población negra era del 52%; en Salta, el 46%; en Córdoba, el 44%; en Mendoza, el 24%; en La Rioja, el 20%; en San Juan, el 16%; en Jujuy, el 13%; en San Luis, el 9%.

A lo largo del siglo XIX, se verifica un decrecimiento sostenido de los africanos y afrodescendientes, hasta que hacia fines de ese mismo siglo, el ingreso masivo de la inmigración "blanca" europea (propiciada por la Constitución Nacional, en su artículo 25) hará bajar drásticamente, en términos relativos, la población negra e indígena en todo el país.

De esta manera, en los documentos oficiales, la gama de la población anteriormente denominada "negra", "parda", "morena", "de color", pasó a determinarse como "trigueña", vocablo ambiguo que puede aplicarse a diferentes grupos étnicos o a ninguno.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParishMaker (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentina's ethnicity

I want to make clear this obscure topic in this article. UBA's study is mentioned here stating 56% of the population with Amerindian ancestry. However, on the next paragraph we can clearly read that " An estimated 7 % of the population is mestizo.[74]"

If we seek the definition given by Wikipedia Mestizo: is a Spanish term that was used in the Spanish Empire to refer to people of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry in Latin America. The term continues to be used today in the Americas, the Philippines, and Guam to refer to people of mixed European and other indigenous ancestry.[4] The term is mostly used specifically of those people of the particular racial mixture of European and American Indian who inhabit and comprise much of the population of Latin America.[5]

Therefore, the "estimated" 7% argentine's mestizo population should be up dated. Besides, that 7% was estimated by whom? --echidna2007 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You leave no room for self-identification! Besides, the entire concept of mixed race/multiracial wouldn't exist, per your reasoning; why? Because every human being *is* admixed. Over the course of human history genes have travelled from one corner of the globe to the other. But that tends to be disregarded, so that only recent ancestry is considered. Now the question, in a country where the census figures are obtained per self-identification — as you already know — is whether 56% of Argentines self-ID as mestizo. They do not.

Likeminas, thanks for rewriting that sentence. It may yet receive some tweaking, though. SamEV (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. They're figurative corners... don't think about it too much. SamEV (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentina is a melting pot of different peoples, both autochthonous and immigrants. Citizens of European descent make up the great majority of the population, with estimates varying from white 89.7% to 97% of the total population. The last national census, based on self-identificacion, indicated a similar figure.

According Wikipedia information Ethnic groups: 86% European (Italian, Spanish, German) 7% Mestizo 2% Amerindian 4% Other

As a point of comparison, the United States of America is 74% white in terms of self-identified race. In other words, Argentina is a nation with a self-perception of more European ancestry than that of the United States!! Argentines consider themselves to be a fundamentally European derived people, in other words, they're a settler society like the United States, Australia or New Zealand.

But what do the genes say?:

A study conducted by Argentine, Swedish and North American institutions, established that the genetic average structure of the Argentine population, contains 79.9% of European contribution, whereas the Amerindian admixture, though not fully visible in physical appearance, was estimated to be present in a high percentage of the population, close to 56% on either paternal or maternal lineages, of which just 10% were shown to have Amerindian ancestors on both lineages.

This study, Argentine population genetic structure: large variance in Amerindian contribution, has more detail:

Argentine population genetic structure was examined using a set of 78 ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to assess the contributions of European, Amerindian, and African ancestry in 94 individuals members of this population. Using the Bayesian clustering algorithm STRUCTURE, the mean European contribution was 78%, the Amerindian contribution was 19.4%, and the African contribution was 2.5%. Similar results were found using weighted least mean square method: European, 80.2%; Amerindian, 18.1%; and African, 1.7%. Consistent with previous studies the current results showed very few individuals (four of 94) with greater than 10% African admixture. Notably, when individual admixture was examined, the Amerindian and European admixture showed a very large variance and individual Amerindian contribution ranged from 1.5 to 84.5% in the 94 individual Argentine subjects. These results indicate that must be considered when clinical epidemiology or case control genetic analyses are studied in this population. Moreover, the current study provides a set of informative SNPs that can be used to ascertain or control for this potentially hidden stratification. In addition, the large variance in admixture proportions in individual Argentine subjects shown by this study suggests that this population is appropriate for future admixture mapping studies. Additionally, as in most Latin American populations, the admixture exhibits a strong sex bias, it seems that maternal lineages (mtDNA) are much more Amerindian than paternal (Y) lineages. The results above use autosomal markers, that is, examining points across the whole genome, so it is not surprising that the Amerindian fraction is far lower than what mtDNA would show.

So what does the genetics tell us in combination with the social data? Individuals will admit or identify to non-European ancestry only when it is visible, because white identity is normatively preferred (in the United States the proportion claiming Native American ancestry has increased in direct relation to the rehabilitation and romanticization of Native people). If one assumes that only with an ancestral proportion around 1/3 can one not deny non-European ancestry (at least on average), then the vast majority of Argentines with a significant proportion of non-European ancestry (on the order of 5% or greater) could likely pass as white.

The bigger picture of what this tells us is that identity is a synthesis of various factors. The Argentine identity is shaped by social considerations; the self-perception that Argentina is a European society, the tacit assumption that to be white is to be a normal Argentine, and so forth. But these preferences and social dynamics lay atop genetic realities mediated through phenotypic perceptions. In plain English, if Argentina had a more balanced Amerindian and European genetic contribution a straightforward self-image as a European settle society would be implausible, too many characteristics which would identify a strong non-European genetic ancestral component would be extant within the population. As it is, since Argentines are mostly European in ancestry the non-European signal, which is easily discernible at the genetic level, is also easily masked. This is a function of the way our cognitive engine interprets traits and engages in categorization. Genetic inheritance is a discrete process, DNA information is encoded along base pairs, but because of the incredible number of points we naturally tend to engage in a blending fallacy in our everyday relations. In terms of phenotype our classes are coarse, and instead of engaging in some sort of complex statistical inference we simply utilize rough & ready heuristics. We bin people into their categories, and we reconceptualize any more finely graded variation to conform to our small set of distinct classes.

--echidna2007 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the English Version regarding the Study- It is also worth noting that out of the 12,000 person sample in the 12 provinces, 10% were of Pure Amerindian background. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics and ethnicity revisited

Demographics and ethnicity have been contentious sections in this article and we've had countless discussions, and agreements, over the course of the years, trying to resolve this issue. Below, I offer a summary of the most recent debate, the conclusions that have been derived, and what I consider should be discussed next, instead of debating and redebating the same issue in circles.

Most Recent Debate:

The article had a claim that almost 98% of Argentines where White or European. Several users here (and in the Spanish wiki) contested this claim, by citing a stud which concluded that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian ancestors on either their mother or their father's side, and 10% on both. Using the same sources, this article was also changed to reflect this reality, back in 2006. Several discussions (and edit wars) ensued, no conclusion was reached. The findings were inserted and deleted at different points in time. When the article was last changed, per Verifiability and NPOV all sources were cited, those who traditionally claim that Argentina is mostly white (namely the CIA Factbook), the 2002 Census in Argentina (the first to classify population by ethnicity since the 19th century and based, however, on self-ascription) as well as the results of the genetic studies. All were properly contextualized. Due, in part to the systemic bias of Wikipedia, as well as to the controversy of the findings themselves, this section has been repeatedly vandalized or "edited" to delete the genetic information. The article Demographics of Argentina has suffered the same fate.

History of Debates/Arguments:

On reliability:

Some users (myself included) have claimed that the genetic study is fully reliable: it is the most comprehensive genetic study ever conducted (the first to be made on a "national" basis) by the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings were certified or endorsed by the Government of Argentina through the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Moreover, these findings have been corroborated by additional genetic studies. [46] Other users (mainly Fercho) have claimed that the studies are not reliable and that the results were flawed. Since the genetic studies have been proven to be "verifiable" (the main criterion for inclusion of facts), he was asked to also provide a reliable and verifiable source to prove his claims. He failed to do so. While he presented two additional studies [47] and [48] that he claimed "contradicted" the study of the Ministry of Education upon revision it was shown that:

The first was limited in scope (it sampled individuals from the city of Buenos Aires, which, for many historical, economical and demographical reasons is by no means representative of the entire country) Both studies actually approached the issue of ethnicity from a different angle. These studies tried to determine the average Amerindian, White and African contribution on the average Argentine. The Amerindian contribution was estimated at 15-19%, with a large variance (1.5% to 85%). These studies actually complement the study of the Ministry of Education: The latter claimed that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian ancestors, the two studies tried to determine the average Amerindian contribution within those Argentines that have Amerindian ancestors. Non-Academic (or non-Scientific) sources, were presented, but they should not be taken into consideration, since they are, in the best of cases, tertiary sources and not primary sources (for example, one of the "sources" presented was: [49])

Conclusion:

After several weeks of debate in which the above arguments and counter-arguments were presented, a consensus was reached. Fercho and I agreed to include the genetic studies, properly contextualized, along with the other sources, like the CIA Factbook and the Argentine census. The section, nonetheless, continued to be vandalized this time by "anonymous" users. Constant reversions were made, until we got tired of it. (I even took a three month break). Fercho and other users eventually reverted back to the version where no genetic information was given. Eventually, other users noticed the change, and started a new debate with Fercho. He used the same arguments he had used before to prevent the genetic articles from being included.

What should be discussed:

First, it has been proven, time after time, that the genetic study is a verifiable and reliable source. This particular debate must be closed. There is no point on contesting the reliability and verifiability of the study, when it was been proven to be both. It was certified by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Argentina, and corroborated by additional studies. There is therefore, no question about its reliability. Unless Fercho and/or other users present equally reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that they are flawed, this issue should be considered as settled. No consensus is needed to agree that a proven reliable source is reliable. As a side note; tourist brochures, country-facts web pages, and the CIA Factbook cannot be used as sources to contradict the genetic studies. They are tertiary sources, not primary sources. Several such sources (including geocities webpages) have been even used to support the preposterous claim that 70% of the Argentines are Italian, and then presented as equally reputable sources for ethnicity. Despite the fact that Fercho and I had a consensual agreement, if we reopen the debate, what should be discussed? Not again on verifiability, but on the pertinence of citing the genetic studies in the Demographics section of this article.

My position regarding the pertinence of including the genetic findings

It is my position that these findings should be included, contextualized, along with the other sources. Why?

First and foremost, per WP:NPOV, which demands that all points-of-view (approaches, if you will) be equally presented. Adding two or three lines to the Demographics/Ethnicity section suffices and does not reduce the quality of the article, as it was claimed before. Neither the CIA claims, nor the Argentine Census need to be deleted; all three sources should be presented. These findings are primary sources, unlike the CIA Factbook, travel guides and even encyclopedias which are, by definition tertiary sources. Tertiary sources, rightly so, cite or summarize the findings of primary sources. When one of the scientists was interviewed he claimed, "I think the European component is overestimated".[50] Rightly so, in recognizing the precedence of primary sources over tertiary sources, the newspaper Clarín, when they first published the results, concluded, "In the meantime [while the scientists conduct complementary research] the foundational myth is questioned: should we erase that section on all travel guides and encyclopedias that claim that 85% of the Argentine population is of European origin?" [51] Secondly, these findings are important. The conclusions of the authors of the study, and endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology say: "The information summarized here [in the genetic study] is based on scientific observations that allow us to redefine the purported belief of the 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 actual constitution of the Argentine population. These type of researches tend to contribute to the characterization of the identity of our country in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (End of quote, emphasis mine).[52]

If such a redefinition or characterization of the identity of the country is important, then the findings are important enough to be included in this article. --the Dúnadan 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)