Talk:Demographics of Argentina/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Controversial Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reply.

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

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

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

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

Fercho85 05:12, 09 Feb 2008

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

Genetics, revisited, et al

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

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

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

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

Linguistic Claim...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whiteness (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Asians

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mixture of portuguese and spanish"

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

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

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

May I be of help?

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

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

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

Protection

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

Protection April 2008

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

Economic status

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

Major removal of material, without summary

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

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

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