Talk:Argentines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Genetics

The genetic sub-section is covered in the article "Ethnography of Argentina" (which is refered in this article). I haven't seen any article about that issue in any other article of the other nationalities made up of inmigration. Besides is a small study which inluded INHABITANTS not only Argentines.

I think it should be removed.

Martin Poltsky —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC).

I'm going to have to revert, I think. The blanking of sourced relevant content is difficult to justify. If you can find non OR criticism of the study's methodology, that's fine to add. Genetics is clearly relevant to the topic, and the ethnography page doesn't have a genetics section. English People is one example of a page which has a lot of genetics information

Boynamedsue (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, I'll revert it, First, England is not a country made by immigrants, the genetic information makes sense in that article (besides it was made to native English people), not in this one besides is a small study made to INHABITANTS not only Argentines. I'll revert it.

And dex (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)And DexAnd dex (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Very short article. And it needs more info about argentinian's origin.

Shouldn't this be at Argentine people? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead with the move, if that's the most common name in English. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "Argentine" is more popular and suitable nowadays too. Oupals (Oupals 0:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• argentine = 55% white, 45% mestizo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.198.75 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess, you read about this on a newspaper, right? Why don't you read this information from its original source instead of a newspaper that manipulated this information?

Numbers

Why is 42,000,000 written in the total population if Argentina's population is 40,134,000 and Argentine population living outside Argentina is less than 800,000? the total population is less than 41,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.6.110 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparing admixtures of two countries

I wannna ask a question.Admixture of the US %96 European. Argentina have 79.9 European admixture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_people#Genetic_background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States#Multiracial_Americans_and_admixture But if we look at these tables Admixtures are so close US %68 have %90> %22 have >80 %10 have %70> admixture.When we look at Argentina %63-68 of population of Argentina have %>90 admixture &17-22 have %80> admixture and %10-20 of Argentine population have 70%> admixture. How can it's possible?Can any people explade it to me?It is contradictious.And it should be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.245.53 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Demonyms

The article started saying "Argentines, also called Argentinians or Argentineans, etc etc...", and several users have removed that later part, leaving "Argentines etc etc...". If think that those two other words should stay as they are. When the denomyn is used elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in "Ricardo Darin is an Argentine actor", we should use Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian, because it's the most common term. Still, even if they are less used terms, they exist, and according to Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names, we should mention their existence as alternative terms. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, that "Argentine, not Argentinian" was deleted for being unencyclopedic and falsely instructional. There is nothing wrong with using "Argentinian". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that once again the other usages are dismissed as simply being wrong: "mistakenly translated". A lot of dictionaries disagree and we have given no source for the analysis that it's a mistake. An alternative with which you disagree does not necessarily equal a mistake. There's also the possibility that it might be a BrE/AmE issue, and if so I think that this should be respected as well. I will restore it to an earlier version without the "mistake" claim but would be happy to discuss it here. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to note that someone seems to have difficulty with discussion ... I wonder why they won't join in here? DBaK (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New zealand and The United Kingdom should be added here.

New Zealand and The United Kingdom are immigration nations, so they should be mentioned here. several articles about immigration on Wikipedia mention New Zealand and The United kingdom. The article about New Zealanders mentions about many people immigrating to New Zealand. The Article about Multiculturalism Mentions the United Kingdom. The article Melting pot Briefly mentions New Zealand and the U.K. and the article about British people Mentions how the British are a multicultural society ad the increasing ethnic diversity in the U.K. as such. I think its safe to add new Zealand and The United Kingdom to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C602:4020:CD36:D1F5:FE3F:B242 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)