Talk:Argentina/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Argentina. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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)

Mistake which should be corrected

I'm really tired, actually, because it says that the time zone is GMT -3, which is a mistake. I would not expect this common mistake from wikipedia, so I'm atonished. Look at this:[1], it states that Argentina is in the time zone GMT -4. If not, just use this as an example. During the Australian Open in melbourne, there we 14 hours of difference. We must surely afree that Melbourne is in GMT +10, right? Now well, some matches were at 7:30 PM in Melbourne time. Ok, if tehre were 13 hours of difference, then the match should be at 6:30 AM, right? Well, as a matter of fact, they weren't. They were at 5:30 AM, thus giving us a difference of 14 hours. 10 - 14 = -4. Now well, I'm really impressed at the magnitude of this problem, which has extended along the entire internet. So well, I will edit puting Argentina in the -4 time zone.

The atlas is not very clearly scanned, but it's clear enough to show Argentina and half of Brazil painted green, the color of the -3 zone. Moreover, time system settings in all computers have GMT -3 as the zone for Buenos Aires. And finally, Melbourne is GMT +11 during the summer (it's Daylight Saving Time). I think your comment above was intended as a joke, though I didn't find it funny. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't you know. I thought YOUR comment above was a bad joke. There is something called kindness, you know, which I think you should have taken in account before posting such a rude comment. Watch your mouth, this is not a "chatroom", and I'm not a friend with whom you can joke. Besides, ask my porfessors which I had, they know it is. So next time, be kinder. Moreover, I must say that Argentina has a unique time zone. Thus, the meridians have to be "altered"(to say it in a way), in order so that there are no time difficulties. Your post lacks kindness. If your life is a misery and you need to be "mister rude perfect", that doesn't care to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I think... (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 March 2006.

And that shows kindness? Maybe practising what you preach would be best. You start by accusing Wikipedia of a terrible mistake, rant about it without even thinking that you might be wrong, and then get mad when someone corrects you. It may not be kind to say so, but your mistake was extremely easy to correct. It's precisely because we're not friends in a chatroom that I took the time to explain my revert. That's my kind of courtesy; avoiding telling people that they're wrong is not. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Time zones are artificial constructs and almost never coincide with meridians. In Argentina the sun sets (in time measured by the clock) 1 hour before in Buenos Aires than it does in Mendoza because we choose to have only one time zone. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from posting again here. Thanks.I think... 00:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no say in that matter, mate. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Villas miseria etc. removed text

I was astonished to find this:

The 1990s saw many rural towns become ghost towns when train services were abandoned and local products manufactured on a small scale were replaced by massive amounts of imported cheap goods, in part because of the monetary policy which kept the U.S. dollar exchange rate fixed and low. Many slums (villas miseria) sprouted in the outskirts of the largest cities, inhabited by empoverished low-class urban dwellers and migrants from smaller towns in the interior of the country. However, it is important to note that the majority of the people that live in these newly formed small shanty towns are people that came from neighboring countries during the time of convertibility and never left. This immigration of humble people from a low socio-economic status represented an undesirable change because shanty towns and homeless people begging for money was something Argentines didn't know until the economic disaster of the 1990s. However, the government works actively to try to include these new inmigrants into Argentine society and considers their children born in Argentina to be Argentines. There are no plans to build any type of wall to keep these inmigrants out. Argentina adheres to a policy of allowing anybody who wants to come to Argentina to come freely without restrictive inmigration measures. In this respect Argentina is more progressive than many fully developed countries.

That a "majority" of villa miseria dwellers are immigrants is not sourced in any way, and it's highly dubious. I won't even comment on the word "undesirable", though the intended meaning may have been different than the obvious. But it is certainly false that "shanty towns and homeless people begging for money was something Argentines didn't know until the economic disaster of the 1990s". The government's immigrant inclusion plans are nowhere to be seen; discrimination and harassment of illegal aliens is rampant. Immigration papers are extremely difficult to get (bureaucracy). Though it's certainly true that Argentina is more progressive with respect to immigration than the U.S. and the EU (because that was implied in the statement), it would be more accurate to say that Argentina basically doesn't care much about immigrants and our border is full of holes. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, here (in B.A.) is obvious that the majority of the villas' are Latin American immigrants. "Discrimination and harassment of illegal aliens is rampant"... again, in B.A. that kind of behavior does not commonly occur. The statement you removed, although unsourced, is highly accurate and factual for the porteños, just google some terms and you'll quickly see what's going on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.214.127 (talk • contribs).

I remember several episodes involving illegal aliens: people from some neighbouring country (Bolivia?) being practically enslaved in sweatshops, fully known to the police and their neighbours; accusations involving Chinese immigrants being enslaved by others, etc. Moreover, Buenos Aires is not Argentina, and the responsibility for checking the facts is on you, not me. In Rosario, I'd say most of the villas' inhabitants are people from Chaco.

I strongly disagree that Argentina is doing active work in integrating immigrants into the rest of society. The comments about the wall are U.S. criticism and have nothing to do with the subject of this article. The amount of illegal aliens in the country (or legal, for that matter) has not been assessed to any significant precission (as demonstrated by discussions here and in Talk:Demographics of Argentina). Bring in some sources and we can talk, but don't add those comments without verification. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you want sources? Here you are [2] [3]. And don't revert my SOURCED, FACTUAL, AND TRUE contributions again without state yours, or I'll send this to the Arbitration Committee, ok?

I reverted because:

A)
There are no plans to build any type of wall to keep these inmigrants out. Argentina adheres to a policy of allowing anybody who wants to come to Argentina to come freely without restrictive inmigration measures. In this respect Argentina is more progressive than many fully developed countries.</bloquote> This is pure POV.
B)
This immigration of humble people from a low socio-economic status represented an undesirable change because shanty towns and homeless people begging for money was something Argentines didn't know until the economic disaster of the 1990s.
This is false. Beggars and villas miseria are not new to Argentina, unless you lived in a bubble. Villas miseria existed since immemorial times (I remember them in the 70s and 80s).
C)
However, it is important to note that the majority of the people that live in these newly formed small shanty towns are people that came from neighboring countries during the time of convertibility and never left
.Another falseness, Villas Misera are not populated exclusively by immigrants, and saying so is racist and ignorant.

To Finish, stop threatening with ArbCom, you're not even a registered user and Pablo is an Admin. You obviously don't even know the steps that a "problem" has to go through until ArbCom even hears the issue. Threats are not well taken in WP, and I urge you to reconsider your editing and interaction style to avoid needless confrontations. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Villas miserias started in the 1950s, when the Peron's government favoured the migration of rural workers to the cities for what was to be an industrial reform, they are, therefore, not newly formed. The inhabitants of these Villas were Argentine, as are their descendents (who still live in the same villas). Even though many inmigrants from neighbouring countries ended up in Villas, it is more than clear that Villas have only a fraction of foreign population. I'm not only from Buenos Aires, but I have also visited some Villas Miseria, and I have to strongly disagree with you. Mariano(t/c) 09:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that for sheltered and insulated porteños it is an unbearable truth to admit that the overwhelming majority of people in Villas Miserias are actually Argentines who migrated from the interior of the country. This reveals a sore truth about Argentina's demographics that porteños have for over a century just ignored; living independently in their isolated part of the country. As has been said so many times now, to the dismay of porteños, Buenos Aires is not Argentina.

Most people from the Argentine interior are mestizos, a large minority is white, although here also only a few are indigenous Amerindians. It is the self-centered porteños who, apart from the European immigrants they recieved and from who they descend, have evolved in isolation and cannot fathom the idea that anyone but a European could possibly be an Argentine. This eurocentrism leads to the deliberate misinformation that most of those in Villas Miserias are not Argentines. Because they are mostly mestizos they are commonly attributed to be Paraguayan or Chilean immigrants and those few that are Amerindians are attributed to be Peruvians or Bolivians. However, when one becomes a superstars in any given field (mostly international sports), then they are claimed for all it is worth.

Among the many famous Argentines originally from the interior, numbers which are themselves a testament to the actual proportion of Argentine mestizos there actually are (i.e. not immigrants), being that opportunities for them is so limited; Atahualpa Yupanqui, Maradona, Mercedes Sosa, Miguel Caneo, and so many others. These people are all Argentines, but are only accepted as such by porteños when they are famous. Most of them ended up in Buenos Aires because of the interior migrations during earlier decades. Of course the majority of Villa Miserables are not famous (and much less among the population who actually live in the interior), and as far as porteños go they may as well be foreigners (and are wished that they were foreigners, as it is a bitter truth European Argentina is not yet willing to acknowledge) and they are certainly treated as foreigners. Al-Andalus 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources of my edit

I couldn't add this to the descripton. It isn't very important but edits have to be Verifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Chaco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia%2C_Argentina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentinien
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina

I'm going to add the spanish and german wiki to the sources of the article. Do you think it is correct, not necessary or i should add all the URLs? Argentino 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New Map

User:Clevelander has updated our map. He hadn't got enough time to ask, but he felt it was really urgent for us to have the Hawaii, the Galápagos Islands, Lakshadweep, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and a fixed border of Slovenia (and ¡Ceuta & Melilla!) in a map we can barely distinguish Poland from Germany. (But he "Apologises if caused any trouble") - Argentino (Talk cont.) 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted my comments and WHY?

I'd like to know why my addition to the "demographics" section of this article were deleted for being "self-advertising".

Rex1932Rex1932 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Added public holiday section

I added the section, but am afraid the article may be too long. If anyone thinks it is really too much, feel free to delete it. Argentino 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, having the section is OK, but having the information duplicated doesn't sound so good. I made a brief on the subject and left the link to the full article. Mariano(t/c) 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Language Icons

I think the language icons ( (in Spanish) and (in English) ) should be changed because they are confusing (at least to me). maybe with flags of Spain/UK it is easyer. I don't know you, but i had to concentrate too much to identify the languange (i mean, much more than i should if there were flags). And see, "spanish" and "english", have the same 3 last words, add to that the same format and colour.

(in Spanish)
(in English)
Ad Augusta Per Angusta -- Argentino 01:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Argentina-related pages have these templates and its use is gradually increasing here and another Wikipedias, according to Special:Whatlinkshere more than 2500 articles include them. Also I think it's easier and faster to type {{es icon}} than [[Image:Flag of Spain.svg|30px]]. --Darklegions 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK --Argentino (talk/cont.) 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I agree with Argentino, that Argentina should be nominated as a good article. Anyone who disagrees with this statement, please comment below. Gabrinae 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to disagree with anything 'cause it's now a GOOD ARTICLE! Good work, everyone! =) --OneEuropeanHeart 18:47, 25 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)

Please read this note

To all users who want to talk about Argentine demographics: please join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Argentina. Thanks. —This We'll Defend (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Barolo Building

Just a note: There is a picture of the Barolo Building, but the article doesn't say what it is. --24.232.7.209 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Shall I protect the page, thus disallowing edits from any non-admins until a proper discussion is conducted and consensus is reached, because of the dispute over demographics? This can't go on, people. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would perhaps be the proper thing to do. All but those three ~~sockets~~ users continue to revert to the previous poor article edition riddled with earlier oversighted deletions, ommitions, purge of all and any citation on the indigenous population and all other relevant information sourced from accredited Argentine institutions and agencies.

I have tried to get the useres to engage in discussions in the relevant Talk: pages (this one and (Talk:Demographics of Argentina]]), but, apart from two quick comments that didn't actually contribute to the actual debate (and only stated an opposition the the article, without reasons, sources, or an alternative), it has been fultile. They have thus far refused to participate in any talks, and their reverts go in direct opposition of the accords and concerns stipulated so far in the discussion on this page.

I think we are in agreesome that the constant deleting of extremely well sourced information on the indigenous population of Argentina, must cease at one. Pablo, you have acknoweladged that this is a trend from those three users that has been watched for quite some time now, and the content has continuosly had to be re-introduced because of the deletion.

Personally, I think it is appauling that it has taken this long for appropriate action to be taken, beyond the infinte and fruitless pleads for the 3 users to enter constructive dialog.

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)

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 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)