Talk:Demographics of Argentina/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Demographics controversy

I understand that there is another discussion about the genetic studies in the Argentina discussion page but I think that starting one here links to the confusion surrounding the recent editing of this and the Argentina page. I agree that there does need to be more written about the Amerindian ancestry of many Argentineans 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 Argentineans 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- Argentinean ancestry is just bad journalism as the actual study[1] concludes that the demise of Afro- Argentineans 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' Argentineans 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 main non European component in Argentina is of course Amerindian. Unfortunately for historical reasons it's not easy to gauge the actual figure of Argentineans with Amerindian ancestry because of poor official statistics. The official figure from the Argentinean government (not the CIA) is 86% 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 Argentinean figure. It's possibly an older figure that categorised all Argentineans as caucasian or 'Europeo' and the 3% are simply Bolivians and Chileans living in the country but I'm not totally sure about this. 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[2].

In the Demographics of the USA page, similar studies[3] about admixture are usually removed as Americans refer to low levels of Non European admixture in whites as 'insignificant'. ---Coldheartedman 10:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I'll try to change the article to reflect your opinion. Thanks. —This We'll Defend (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Coldheartedman, you are right to question the Afro-Argentine finding. As you see, I too have a problem with that one, because it is based solely on the population of Buenos Aires, which is not representative of the country as a whole. As I have said before, this is the area where most of the Afro-Argentine population was concentrated during the colonial period, and the rest of the country had practically no slave population, so it would be logical that such a high percentage (I consider 10% high considering the European waves that followed) of people were found to possess African markers in this area.

As for the uni-parental testing for the Amerindian ancestry of the population, the study itself has stated that there would be an outcry by the hardcore groups who reject any questioning or deviation from the traditional account that Argentina was formed from European elements only. The study specifically indicated that at no point does it claim that most of those who were found to possess Amerindian markers were actually mestizo, as you wrongly have interpreted it. In fact, the study categorically explained that the majority of those people who tested positive for Amerindian markers where in fact phenotypically white, and the admixture was distant. This coincides with history.

During the colonial period, the population majority of Argentina was mestizo, though in Buenos Aires the proportion of the colonial Afro-Argentine element was high also. The country's overall colonial mestizo majority (as well as Buenos Aires' large Afro-Argentine segment) was overwhelmed by the new immigrants. Instead of the local population absorbing the new immigrants, as is usually the case in traditional scenarios of immigration, the number of immigrants were several times the size of the local population, so it was the immigrants who absorbed the local population (which was mestizo in its majority). However, most of this absorption happened in the port regions where the vast majority of immigrants would settle (which is also why it became the most densely populated regions). The population of this region was then majority white, whether or not they have an absorbed mestizo ancestor. Conversely, the mestizo element of the argentine interior was to also reduce slightly, but it nonetheless remained the most predominant element there (although the population density is lower in these regions).

Those that conducted the study have indicated that the methodologies are representative of the population, and the most comprehensive to date. They findings are in fact backed and hosted on argentine government websites, so they have been endorsed by the government. Again, I want to stress to you, that even the government endorsement (and even the study itself) does in no way say that most Argentines are mestizo (which seems to be the basis of your opposition). They in fact reinforce that the majority is still white, but that most of these have some Amerindian admixture. That’s all. It doesn’t go beyond this, so there should be no controversy. Eurocentrism being a trait common to all of Latin America, not just Argentina, it’s not surprising to see such a backlash to any mention of the non-European heritage (either as a distant legacy among the white majority, or as a larger minority of the overall mestizo population). You see this even in countries like Chile with a mestizo majority with a white minority, wanting to claim a larger white minority and smaller mestizo majority. Countries like Mexico, with a mestizo majority and large Amerindian minority and small white minority, wanting to claim a larger mestizo majority, a smaller Amerindian minority, and a larger white minority. In countries like Peru, with an Amerindian plurality and a large mestizo minority, wanting to claim a mestizo majority with a large Amerindian minority. Even the Philippines, with a population of over 95% Malay, wanting to claim 5% as mixed Malay/Spanish where they actually represent under 2%.

Finally, it is true that official figures from the Argentine government have always stated 85% is white, and the remaining 15% is mestizo and a smaller Amerindian minority. Though even this is a bit of an undercount of mestizos. Given that the argentine interior hosts around 35% of the population, and in this region the mestizo element has traditionally predominated, typically with over half of people in these areas being mestizo, with a small Amerindian population, the rest being white. Local argentine mestizos probably represent closer to 18% of the country's overall population.

As you pointed out, it is only the CIA that put the figures of the white population at 97%, which is definitely an overestimation. As you have also pointed out, the reason why the CIA World Fact book provides such a vastly different figure is indeed because it categorises the actual "Argentine nationality" as white, and since Argentine mestizos are Argentines, they are thus counted as whites. This is to distinguish them from the immigrant mestizos of neighbouring Chile, Paraguay, etc. This is what causes the non-white population (itself mostly mestizo, with a small Amerindian minority) to decrease from 15% to 3%. The standard is applied because the CIA is a Federal US government agency.

For an example of this, you may see in this US government profile of Argentina it went from stating 85% white, 15% mestizo, Amerindian and others (data as provided by Argentina itself and published prior to 2000 changes to US guidelines) to stating the overestimated figures of 97% white, and 3% mestizo, Amerindian and others in this US government profile of Argentina based on the new parameters where the Argentine nationality is equated to white (using the US agencies own new guidelines, independently of Argentine sources). A somewhat similar problem occurred in Demographics of Chile with CIA figures. Here the argument was that a user did not want mestizos to be stated as the majority (although he wasn't putting whites as the majority either, he just didn't want mestizos mentioned as the majority), despite this being the only case not only according to all data everywhere inside and outside of Chile, but also just a mere visit to the country would demonstrate (although culturally and in regards to infrastructure, the country does stress it's European heritage more than its Amerindian one). In this case the problem with the CIA was that it now states that the majority of people in Chile are either "white or white-Amerindian (ie. mestizos)". Although this is technically not incorrect, it is extremely vague and it could mean anything. Peru also possesses a majority that is "white or white-Amerindian" (37% is mestizo and 15% is white, together they are 52%, and anything over 50% is a majority). The CIA in its previous editions stated that Chile was 93% mestizo, 3% Amerindian, and 2% white. That it now says the majority (95%) is "white or white-Amerindian" is no different, because 93% + 2% = 95%, but the other one was better because it was detailed. Either way, all estimates provided by both Chilean agencies and statistic agencies all state that mestizos alone constitute Chile's population majority. Now if we're gonna get into the subject of what proportion of Chile's mestizos (as already stated, 93% of the total population) are physically indistinguishable from an unmixed European and whether those should be accounted for seperately as part of the white population (possibly augmenting the white population from 2% to around 30%) then that it a totally different topic. This is just to exemplify the problem with the CIA in regards to quoting it's own estimates of ethnic groups of countries other than the USA (and some probably say that they can't even get the US figures right, lol).

Now, concerning the following remark: 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 This is absolutely true, especially in the USA, but this is not the case of what is trying to be implement in this article. As you see, the majority population is still being cited as white, because even with these genetic findings, that's what the population essentially is. The findings are here as a history to the population evolution of the country. This is after all the demographics article. And I agree with you, official government figures should be used and given priority (85% white). Genetic findings should be complimentary data (Over 85% is white, but 56% of the population have some Amerindian ancestry). Meanwhile, data which are known not to factual or overestimations (like the CIA's figures on ethnic groups, because of questionable parameters and methodologies, not only in the case of Argentina) should be avoided, or if included, be well explained. Al-Andalus 16:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr Daniel Corach states in various articles that those who have one Amerind lineage have "the mestizo condition" [4] (pdf file) and those who have both Amerind parental lineages are "genetically Amerind with no European component" [5], they are his words and that's what I was commenting on. The current erroneous edit that possibly 5.6% of the population is 'purely Amerindian' originates from this reference. Finally, the study is not only of 'white' Argentineans as you have incorrectly stated but of a random sample of Argentinean men from various provinces throughout the country. Whether or not it's representative of the population remains to be seen until the study is released.

The only ethnic consideration made in the study was those with Amerind surnames were excluded to prevent bias. Mestizo Argentineans usually have European names and as far as I know the phenotype (or appearance) of those in the sample was not a consideration because this is after all a study of genetics. If you have a copy of the actual study then feel free to quote the passages here that substantiates your various claims. Scientists are not infallible. They are not immune from bias which is why unreleased studies that gain much attention in certain media circles and which are being misrepresented by those such as yourself are controversial. The Clarin article that you keep referring to isn't the study.

Argentina in colonial times remained relatively sparse due to the hostility of the natives particularly the Puelche in the interior and for this reason Argentina remained a colonial backwater. Therefore, there was less interaction between the Spanish/criollos and the natives in contrast to other regions of Latin America. This wasn't rectified until the conquest of the desert in 1882 which eliminated the Native Americans in much of Patagonia opening it up to farming and settlers. Your claim that most Argentineans of this era were mestizo is dubious because of Argentina's small population, both of whites and natives and of the relative segregation that existed.

Most Amerind ancestry that exists in Argentina today is Guarani which indicates that Amerind ancestry in some Argentineans is of a recent origin rather than from colonial intermixing that may have occurred. Guaranis are not native to Argentina but originate from the north particularly following the annexation of Paraguayan territory. In the mid IXth century Paraguay was decimated during the War of the Triple Alliance and much of what was left of the men folk found it's way to Argentina in search of work and other opportunities. The 'mestizo' Argentineans that you find in Santa Fe, Corrientes, Misiones and even Buenos Aires are mostly descendents of these people.

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 particularly concerning your claims that Argentina's population during the colonial period was mostly 'mestizo', until then your point of view remains just that. Argentina does has a distinct and underestimated non European component but demographics should be based on known facts and statistics. One last thing, I'm not questioning the Afro- Argentinean study findings but rather how others misinterpret them and whether scientific studies that few seem to understand should be used in this page. ---Coldheartedman 08:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Once the edit war is over and a consensus is reached HERE. Please message me (or message any other admin) for unprotect. Please clearly outline the consensus and sign it to make clear to whoever will unprotect what's the decision.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My point of view

First of all, thanks to Sebas for the protection, and thanks to all who continously help improving the article with accurate and reliable material.

I will be concise and clear: has anyone any conflict or objection with this page revision?
In my humble opinion, it's properly written and sourced, accurately covering the most important details of ethnically-related topics of the country; and unlike the current one, with two sections entirely about references and other relevant sources, detailing date of access and authors. It's almost sad that the article must lower its quality and get protected only because of an user who refuses to talk and discuss things civilly.

By the way, I have been watching the history of both pages and the contributions of Al-Andalus (talk · contribs), and I'm afraid that in no ocassion I saw any co-operative behaviour from his side, even when he has been warned about that. Examples?
1) On April 26, 2006 VsA added a note [6] about the situation on Talk:Demographics of Argentina, politely informing and explaning other wikipedians about this issue. This note was deleted by Al-Andalus on the same day without any apparent reason [7]. The edit by VsA was later restored by me [8] on April 27, 2006.
2) On April 26, 2006 VsA warned Al-Andalus about the same situation on Talk:Demographics of Argentina [9], explaining again the issue and asking him to do changes with consensus. The warning was deleted by Al-Andalus [10] on the same day, given the curious reason of "moved concerns to Talk:Demographics of Argentina"; an action that he, obviously, never did.
3) On April 27, 2006 VsA warned Al-Andalus again [11], and I reinforced this adding a simple note on his talk page the same day [12]. The answer was tremendous: he immediatly accussed me of deleting information and "no participating on the discussion", even when at that time the data was still there and my reply [13] was on Talk:Demographics of Argentina.
4) On April 27, 2006 Darklegions warned Al-Andalus (for the 4th time!) [14] about his edits on Argentina. The reply by Al-Andalus included accusations against me and my comments on Talk:Demographics of Argentina; it seems that this user acts a little "strange" when someone has a different opinion than he.
5) On May 1, 2006 VsA added a sources-only section to solve the references' problem [15]. This edit, of course, was reverted as soon as possible by Al-Andalus [16], which only quoted "Talk". Is that a reason for the removal of such important footnotes?
6) It is important to note that, also, Al-Andalus has received at least 13 warnings [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] by 3 different users about this issue, without any intention of discuss changes or change his behaviour. As of now, I think it's fairly enough.

The only reason why I keep reverting changes on Argentina is that consensus on this talk page seems to be against the inclusion of more information on another non-main article, as per Wikipedia's official policies. The only reason why I keep reverting changes here is that they're unsourced, biased, and/or POV for this article. Just see both history pages and you'll quickly notice the difference.

I also have, as with nearly all Wikipedians, "real life" obligations to take care of. The only thing I want for this encyclopedia is to develop and improve it in a neutral way, with proper sources and references.

Hope this issue will be solved soon. Please post your replies below this comment. Thanks again for your time. --OneEuropeanHeart 02:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about keeping this article revision and returning the original demographics' section of Argentina; if changes are sourced and non-controversial let's keep them, otherwise WP:BRD. I also don't like Al-Andalus but frankly I don't care too much about him and what he does, if he keeps reverting without discussion let's stop worrying and list him on WP:AIAV. Goodbye. --Darklegions 03:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Darklegions and OneEuropeanHeart. Welcome to the talk page, nice to see you finally here, it must be so new for you two. Now, how about contributing to the discussion beyond the mere statement of "I don't want this versions" or "I don't agree", or "I don't like", or "I agree [with someone who has also just merely stated 'I don't agree' or 'I don't like']". Let's see some sources, let's hear your positions once and for all. What exactly do you want out and for what reasons. Elaborate on why in your opinion the sources are not reliable, credible, biased or a POV. At the same time, detail the sources which will back up your side of the debate (if you have any), and elaborate why they are reliable, credible, biased or a NPOV, and should be given priority (or as you insit, should be the sole sources used).

OneEuropeanHeart, I see that you are very capable of collecting information (as per your very first "larger-than-a-single-sentence" message you have today posted here). Pitty it's all just a history of "warnings" written by the two cautioning me to not change your vandalisations. Now let's put all that detective work and effort into the topic as described in the paragraph above. Al-Andalus 04:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Some points on the key disputed statements:

• I would prefer Argentine government sources, where methodology can be better analysed, to be given priominence over the CIA factbook, although both should be quoted. Over 85% (as opposed to just 85%) is a statement that both sources agree with, 97% is a disputed figure by some sources. The difference is itself interesting, as we have shown, although perhaps not discussed in this article. Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I put, "Over 85%". This can be quantified, and the "over" rightfully emphasises that at least 85% is white (of course, disregarding any distant genetic Amerindian contribution in the population majority which is deemed white, whether exclusively or phenotypically), while retaining the plausibility that perhaps more (for the unplacatable hardcore who refute this tooth and nail, with or without a foundation to stand on). Although please realise that it is my belief that even that 85% is somewhat inflated, and would more likely hover around 80%, however, this is a conclusion of my own which I came to after studying argentine population data. I am, therefore, not debating that the latter, being an opinion of mine, should be considered (let alone debated). It's just something interesting I thought I'd share. Al-Andalus 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Spanish and Italian being the prominent source of immigration is non-contraversial and sourced. If German is to be added to this list, it needs to have a citation that shows Germany or its predecessor states pre-1870s to be of a sufficiently higher amounts than others, and close enough to the first two, to warrant being in the list of largest sources. Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's exactly the changes that were introduced by me. I got a lovely message on my talk page from the user saying how putrid I was for suggesting aloud such an “imagination” in my head; the "suggestion" that German immigration wasn't on a par with Spaniards and Italians. Can you believe that? The user said I was crazy, and that I should back it up (obvious as it is). Though when this was done, it was merely reverted again. Al-Andalus 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• For the longer list of originating countries, we again should have numbers or percentages to give credence to the list, and some sort of criteria, although here cultural and historical significance may make the list more subjective, as in the case of the Welsh, Jewish and more recently the Middle Eastern and Asian, and others.Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Al-Andalus 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't find the assertion that the pre-mass immigration was, taken as a whole, mestizo as surprising. But, as it is controversial to some, let's find a citation. Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are citations from Argentine government agencies and argentine institutions that can be quoted for this. They can be inserted when the page is unprotected. Al-Andalus 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• We need a reference for statements about under-counting of people generally and Amerindians, etc in particular in historic censuses, although, once again, I have no problem believing it and support its includion with a citation. Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, there are citations from Argentine government agencies and argentine institutions that can be quoted for this. They will be inserted when the page is unprotected. In this case, I personally don't find it all that imperative to include this statement IF appropriate figure/s and explanations of their methodologies are all used (showing all the sides that there may be, leaving out the actual controversial reasons as to why there are indeed so many disparate figures of ethnic groups). The thing is, this attitue of undercounting population is pervasive throughout all of Latin America, and is not unique to Argentina. We'd be putting this kind of statement in every article of every Hispanic country if that was the case. I just don't want this page to become like the Etnografía del Perú article on the Spanish wikipedia, where the explanation as to the reasons behind the differing figures is three quarters of the article, and had to be done because a user refused to have Amerindians listed as the plurality (45%) of that country without the mention as to perhaps the large minority of mestizos (37%) is actually the majority (perhaps 55%) and that they together with the 15% minority of whites make Peru's overwhelming majority (perhaps 70%). Al-Andalus 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point about the talk page is that some users kept using other pages and edit summaries to point here and that justified reverts, but we still haven't seen a comprehensive post on here as to why the sources or statements brought by Al-Andalus and others are disputed. The same cannot be said of Al-Andalus themselves, who has given their personal view, source and justifications. But more are still required on their part. Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG. Thank you. What have I been saying all along? But do realise, Mtiedemann, that you are not one of the three users in question who has vehemently refused to contribute to talk in a manner actually progressive to the debate, and who have hypocritically and deceptively cited the very talks that they have not set foot in as their reason for reverts. We are still to see if the three users actually will contribute. But I nonetheless thank you for helping in the progress of this situation. Al-Andalus 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of us (or just me) are a bit touchy because, previously, anonymous and other users kept removing any reference to the genetic research or Amerindian heritage and we see this discussion in the light of that. I hope we've moved beyond that part of the debate now. Mtiedemann 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To Al-Andalus

Remember how this began? I was trying to improve the page clarifying some things but I wasn't 100% sure, so I asked on talk page and included a template on the main one. You immediatly reverted all my changes without any wish to discuss or talk about the issue; going against, i.e., WP:BRD.

You can do what you want, Al-Andalus, but you can't change official rules. You MUST source your changes, and if them are controversial someone will always revert and invite you to talk; exactly the same what we did.

The demographics' paras of Argentina, IMO, don't need any more information. It's sufficiently enough and verifiable to say that "the majority of the Argentine population is European descendant" than to include other deliberations about race or genetics. I'm NOT saying that we have to delete this information from Wikipedia, I'm saying that is better to state possible CONTROVERSIAL data on a non-GA page.

And BTW please stop acussing other users, show at least some wish to give a solution. —This We'll Defend (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why can't at least a single one of your posts actually add to the debate? Huh? You have posted for the third time now, and still you haven't clarified your position, your alternatives to the article, nor the sources you intend to use to back them up, or a proper academic explanation as to why the current content and its sources are a problem and not feasible. Please note that a personal objection not based on a scientific or academic foundation, does not count. However, I will address it, because if this debate it is to include you (and it must, since you're the reverter), it has to contain some contributions from you, as pittyful as they may be.

The demographics paragraphs of Argentina "don't need any more information", in your opinion? Well let's thank the lordy that that is only your opinion, and here we don't work on individuals opinions.

More importantly, explain to us how the Amerindian genetic legacy (which was known before the genetic studies, and was merely confirmed by them) is controversial? It could only be controversial to someone who refutes science, refutes known history (Argentine colonial history), and in all honesty, just plain refutes reality. The only thing which has been acknowledged as perhaps being potential to cause controversy was the assertion that Argentina in general tries to downplay or deny the Amerindian contribution. And as you see, if you read my post above, I actually agree in this instance; that perhaps that statement regarding downplay/denial is a bit controversial and should be thoroughly backed up if it wants to be included.

You must really be some kind of hardcore aspiring white-nationalist to be offended, and consider as "controversial", things that have always been known and today are in fact known as facts thanks to science and analysis of historic population data – ie. the Amerindian contribution to Argentina's majority population, whether as a genetic legacy in its white population, or as the reality of a larger mestizo minority (which are undercounted), and its remaining Amerindians. This is not a matter of controversy. It's a matter of you wanting to keep the page with one single POV, your POV, suggesting that no more information be contributed to the article. What on earth happened to NPOV. Please look up WP:NPOV to understand what that actually means.

I can only imagine if the world worked on your ethics. If we find out that something isn’t particularly pleasant to our biased sensibilities, then let’s not look it up any further, lest we find out more and we and the world develop as a result. Grow up! Al-Andalus 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, yes I remember how this began. You came to talk to post your queries (Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself) after reverting all other information out. Then, disregarding the message to you by several users that the article didn't contradict itself (which was explained to you very meticulously), you nonetheless reverted the page (and kept doing so, until the protection was put in) and never actually came back to further your case, present your alternative, or present the data to back you up. The only two other users that agreed with you, without a convincing argument of their own may I add, were the other two revert-happy users, OneEuropeanHeart and Darklegions. Their trademarks arguments typically consist of "I agree" and "I totally agree" to posts that also contain absolutely no data that argues their "agreed" position. Al-Andalus 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your co-operation in this issue, man; I really thought you had some kind of community service, but I was seriously mistaken. Keep calling me white nationalist, fascist, national socialist if you want; continue with your insults-only replies and your unsourced pseudoscientific statements, I don't care. I'm gone. —This We'll Defend (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Get off your pedestal, and don't act so offended. The vulgarities and abuse from you were worse, considering they were specifically intended as well as baseless. Do note that I never called you a white-nationalist. I said you, or anyone for that matter, "really must be some kind of hardcore aspiring white-nationalist to be offended, and consider as 'controversial', things that have always been known and today are in fact known as facts thanks to science and analysis of historic population data..." I never said you were in fact a white-nationalist, as I have nothing to back up such a claim. But fine, if you want to cop out of a debate you always knew you wouldn’t or couldn't back up, then take this opportunity to do so. Just be man enough to admit it is of your own accord, and don’t try to pin your surrender on anything or anyone other than your own self. Also realise, even up to this last message of yours, you still never did post your position, your alternatives to the article, nor the sources you intend to use to back them up, or a proper academic explanation as to why the current content and its sources are a problem and not feasible. Al-Andalus 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, you already know that I agree with most of the content you presented, but that's it. Lately your posts seem to be more and more about your negative opinions of others. This is no way to treat other editors. Calling someone e. g. "an aspiring white nationalist" is only a tiny step away from calling them "a white nationalist", and both are way far from being civil or from assuming good faith. You've already said everything that you wanted to say; now please wait and see what comes out of it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's give a solution, then

I'll re-post the preceding unaswered comments from me and VsA:

"I will be concise and clear: has anyone any conflict or objection with this page revision?
In my humble opinion, it's properly written and sourced, accurately covering the most important details of ethnically-related topics of the country; and unlike the current one, with two sections entirely about references and other relevant sources, detailing date of access and authors."

"The demographics' paras of Argentina, IMO, don't need any more information. It's sufficiently enough and verifiable to say that "the majority of the Argentine population is European descendant" than to include other deliberations about race or genetics. I'm NOT saying that we have to delete this information from Wikipedia, I'm saying that is better to state possible CONTROVERSIAL data on a non-GA page."

I think VsA wanted to say that, if we know that some IPs have been deleting information, let's keep the data here instead of Argentina, given that stability is a key condition for a good article.

Al-Andalus, keep your reply simple and sourced. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If we know that some IPs have been deleting information, let's block them!!! --Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple vandalism doesn't make an article unstable; if an article suffers from vandalism, it must be watched for, and it can still be a good article. However, if vandalism is unstoppable, it might be preferrable to protect the page, even if it means losing the GA status. Argentino, if someone (an IP anonymous user or a registered user) continuously deletes information without good justification, s/he must be first warned several times with increasing force; then, if vandalism doesn't stop, one can resort to blocking, but only for a short time (12 or 24 hours at most). If the vandal begins again after the block, you can block him/her for a longer time.

I understand the concerns of VsA and OneEuropeanHeart, but I don't agree that any article should keep a "low profile" to avoid attracting vandalism or controversial edits. Genetic studies say that many Argentinians have some Amerindian ancestry, period: it may be bad news to someone, but it's a fact. We should strive for a good balance between summarizing data and presenting relevant information; taking care of other people's sensitivities with respect to "race" at the expense of sourced facts is no good. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Pablo. Mtiedemann 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's OK for me if you can watch the page, just keep it on your watchlist and I'll don't have that problem =) What do you think about the other issue? --OneEuropeanHeart 01:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving information out because of vandals would be giving up on vandalism. Mariano(t/c) 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before it's not "leaving information", it's just putting it on a non-good article. But you're late to the party, I already agreed with Pablo =) My question was regarding the page revision above stated. --OneEuropeanHeart 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That revision is OK with me. I'd rather not have such detail on where each European community settled where, and wouldn't mind trimming the sections on Amerindian and African ancestry a bit, as long as the critical data is preserved, but it's better organized than the current version, and much better than some of the past alternatives. Should I unprotect the page? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If my oppinion counts: yes, please --Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks to all for your help =) --OneEuropeanHeart 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)