Talk:Argentina/Archive 7

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 5

Trivia Section

This section is absolutely unnecessary and it is highly discouraged by wikipedia standards. I know Argentines feel proud about their country but let us keep it nice and neat. I will be summiting it for deletion if nobody takes the initiative. Likeminas (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Information source

(Old comment, do not archive since it's useful to have it here at the top.)

-Mariano 09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

Cleanup Co-ordination

This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
the article has multiple overlapping problems.
the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

Discussion

Yeah I am going to try to help. Let me see what I can do. (XGustaX 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

205.160.23.2 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Why is this discussion section so obsessed with race?

205.160.23.2 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Amerindian and Mestizo blood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islas Malvinas

The name of the islands is not Falkland in english and Malvinas in Spanish. I have corrected that yesterday but today is wrong again! I don't know why it says 'the encyclopedia that everyone can edit' cuz this is not the first time I edit something and someone returns to the old revision.

Islas Malvinas is the name of the islands. Falkland is a name that the UK adoped to "their" islands. But there is not such a thing as In inglish and in Spansih.

Both names are international. If you have anything to tell me mail me at rama_pot_lomas@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.99.230 (talk) 14:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. I will accept your statement on common Spanish usage, but I think I can claim greater familiarity than yourself with English. They may well be called Malvinas in Spanish, but in English they are known only as the "Falkland Islands", or the "Falklands". Both names are not international. Any English publication will always refer to the islands as Falklands, and this, I'm afraid, is an article in an English encyclopedia.

And yes, it's the encyclopedia that everyone can edit - but since that applies to you, it applies to everyone else, too. It's also the 'encyclopedia that anyone can correct'. --Stephen Burnett 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that calling it Malvinas/Falklands or Falklands/Malvinas would be the best to keep everyone happy, and I will be a way to keep in mind that the islands are currently in dispute in the UN and there are no agreement to it's status. I have see many inglish works about the war and the islands an in many of them they are called by the british name of Falklands and the Spanish name of Malvinas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right. The name of the islands is Islas Malvinas, but UK like to call them "Falkand Islands". --201.235.130.133 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas is the Spanish name, while Falkland Islands is the game given to them in English, actually, the islands name was not declared official, neither Falklands (lame Spanish traductions) and Malvinas are the name of the islands. The UK gave them that name, but never declared it official. The islands are given the name they were given in different languages.

201.218.84.240 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When will Argentines understand that the whole English speaking world call them the Falklands - not just the UK!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the correct policy would be to call the islands by the name the inhabitants themselves use. As far as I understand, the inhabitants call them Falkland. So that should be the name used.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct way to name them is according to wikipedia NPOV, a fundamental Wikipedia principle. Just as the UN call them, FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)...of course I could argue why is malvinas in brackets but I won't go that far. [1] --Seba5618 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite easy... when we analize a different case: Germany

In English it's called Germany In German it's called Deutschland In Spanish it's called Alemania

Curiously, all three definitions in each language refer to a different tribe (Germanic, Teutonic and Alemannic), though in each language, the definition is not disputed. In the Spanish Wikipedia, Islas Malvinas should be the right name, in the english Wikipedia (this one) Falkland Islands is the right choice. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in the Sport Section

Argentina did not win the third place in the Rugby World Cup 2007 by beating france 17 to 12 (see the caption of the rugby photo). That result was from the opening match. Argentina won the third place in the rugby world cup by beating france 34 -10.

Suggestion to add in Education

I would add the IAE (Business school of the Austral University) as it is the 22nd best Business School of the World according to the Financial Times.

IAE has successfully obtained the three leading international accreditations for Management Education outstanding quality

-Equis (European Quality Improvement System, E.U.) -AACSB (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, U.S.) -AMBA (Association of MBAs, U.K.).

IAE’s executive education programs top both domestic and international rankings published by leading publications, such as The Financial Times, Business Week, América Economía, and Apertura, among others

For nine consecutive years, IAE has ranked among the world’s top 30 Business Schools and the first in Latin America, according to The Financial Times Executive Education Ranking

[2]

Photos: http://www.iae.edu.ar/SiteCollectionImages/Fotos/interior.gif http://www.iae.edu.ar/SiteCollectionImages/Fotos/Aerea.gif http://www.iae.edu.ar/SiteCollectionImages/Fotos/ventana.gif http://www.iae.edu.ar/SiteCollectionImages/Fotos/clase2.gif

This is the Medicine School of the Austral University of Argentina http://bp3.blogger.com/_EcGudj8WbK8/RxeRTciJhCI/AAAAAAAAAKU/JLXOel9LQiw/s1600-h/Presentacion+Teresa+E[1].++Octubre+2007.jpg|</gallery>

Removed from GA list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developed country

According to the developed country article, a country with a Gross National Income that surpasses 11, 116 US dollars is a developed country, Argentina's GNI surpasses that number and goes over, meaning that Argentina is developed and also, Argentina's GDP (PPP) per capita surpasses the 12,000 est. US dollars, the required number for developed country in income numbers so, I have three figures at my favor.

Argentina's developed country GNI

Its high GDP per capita and also its very high HDI which although does not surpasses .900 goes similar to that of Portugal right now, and Portugal is a developed country, and Argentina's industry is that heavy as well. I think its even heavier than that of Portugal.

A larger TOTAL GDP maybe the second largest in the south cone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.64.177 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Will someone reply, the Argentine Nation is a developed country, like Italy, or Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.179 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Argentina exhibits (and has usually shown in the past) some indicators as a developed country, but it is not usually included in the developed country category, because it suffered a heavy process of des-industrialization approximately between 1975-1990. Its HDI index of 0.869 is high, but not as high as that of "advanced economies" (over 0.9), and its GINI (unequality index) is too high (52.8) for a developed country. In fact, none of the institutions mentioned in the Developed country article include Argentina among the developed countries (although quite probably it was one at some point in the 20th century, and it may become a developed country again, if it solves some of its problems, but not yet.) Daniel_C (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of true, Argentina has the look, feel and almost all the things of a developed country, however, I think that you are right since that of the des-industrialization process it's true but Argentina still exhibits the exact appeareance of a developed coutry, when I got to Argentina I rarely found it more "developed" than Italy.

I think that this country just lacks the, developed industrial infraestructure, but if no des-industrialization ever happened, it would have been with the G8 right now instead of Italy.

But its HDI is not excuse however, Portugal's or Czech Republic's HDI's classified both of them as developed countries, and both countries are under 0.9 in their HDI.

As you can see, China does not have an HDI over even 0.8 and it has overpowered the UK, France and Japan I think the standard of living does not make the country developed, but it has to do more with the industrial advancements.

this is fully wrong. if so, let's take new zealand out the list of developed, since they have none industrial advencement. and China, by the way NOT A DEVELOPED NATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

201.218.79.62 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that Argentina is a developed country based on personal comparisons and making judgment calls on economic indicators violates: WP:NOR. Moreover, his/her claim on GDP is incorrect, as he is looking at GDP per capita at purchasing power parity, whereas the World Bank uses GDP PPP in nominal (real) terms to classify middle-income from high-income countries (and Argentina's GDP per capita in real terms is around $6000 USD). Moreover, all major important economic associations classify Argentina as a:

The anonymous user must not engage in WP:OR, but must provide reliable sources to substantiate his/her claim. The source above contradict his claim, and therefore, the article must be changed to accurately state that Argentina is a developing country and/or a "secondary emerging country". --the Dúnadan 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to ask something, could you give me a list of the Spanish speaking countries which are "developed"?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is your source. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?Country=AR&IndicatorID=140 though it does not specify "developed country" it gives a description of the GNI per capita, which, if surpasses 11,400 makes the country "developed" though this would mean that anomalies exist between this one is the fact that Argentina is "developed" but no industrialized, it also leaves the space of the income inequality, however, it means that Argentina is developed at the end.

The anomalies would mean that the country is, in standards of living "developed" but that it lacks a developed industry. Since the anomalies combine with the GNI and see if they are developing.

The article said: "However, when measuring using GNI, anomalies may exist and the country could be either considered developing, developed, or even both.

However, these anomalies are present in other developed countries.

201.218.79.62 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is precisely that your sourced does not specify "developed country", and other sources do specify that Argentina is not a developed country". You are using the GDP figure to make a novel synthesis, which is OR in WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A question, is South Africa a developed country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and that is irrelevant to whether or not Argentina is. You do not have a source that says Argentina is developed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carl.bunderson, South Africa's status is irrelevant to our discussion. The link provided by the anon simply reports Argentina's GNI per capita, not that Argentina is a developed country. Like Carl said, the anon is making a novel synthesis (WP:OR), and furthermore, a wrong novel synthesis. He based his OR on Argentina's GDP per capita in PPP (as the link shows) and then cites the threshold of income given in the article: developed country. First of all, Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source for itself; secondly the World Bank classifies countries according to GNI per capita in nominal terms [3], not in purchasing power parity (PPP) which as an artificial exchange rate based on differences in purchasing power. (More accurately, the WB uses the Altas Method which is a three-year average of the nominal exchange rates). Argentina's GDP in nominal terms is $5,150, (2006, the most recent figure provided by the WB) well below the threshold of $11,116. Therefore, the World Bank does not classify Argentina as an advanced developed country, but as an upper-middle income country.[4].--the Dúnadan 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This,^[1] gives you all you need to know, Argentina is a high income country, while South Africa, is Upper Middle. Inferior to Argentina. 201.218.79.62 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop changing the article, or it will be blocked. Please read the links above. Please read the sources above. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a valid source, you must cite other secondary independents sources. The sources above contradict your claim. You are engaging in WP:OR, prohibited by Wikipedia's guidelines. --the Dúnadan 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry for mistaking everything, but is still not a developing country Argentina is currently at an estimate of two years from full development and may even surpass France in that period, but Argentina WAS DEVELOPED at a certain time, this currently leaves it as a "re-developing" country, but currently it has "developed" stats, just, the problem is that it has not yet reached the knowledge of classifying institutions.

This sources proves my point, since Spain has "ever" been developed, the source states Argentina reaching Spain, so it shows Argentina "in the same league" as Spain.

[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any source that states that Argentina is a developed country, while three sources state clearly that Argentina is a developing country. You have not provided any source, the picture above does not have any headers and refers to -arguably- GDP per capita in PPP, which is not used by the World Bank to classify countries: you are confusing GNI in nominal terms with PPP terms. Please read the sources above. Opinions aside, you need to provide a reputable valid source to substantiate your claims. If your claims have not reached "the knowledge of classifying institutions" (of which the most recent is 2007!), then you are engaging in WP:OR and WP:3RR. You have been already warned to stop reverting. --the Dúnadan 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But, a question, why is South Africa a developed country if its stats are inferior to Argentina's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.79.62 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting'. You have been warned plenty of times. You cannot compare statistics because you are comparing the wrong statistics. It doesn't matter what you can argue and compare, but what can be proved with sources. --the Dúnadan 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the statistics for both countries.

Source: [6]

From South Africa article: In many respects, South Africa can be considered a developed country.[citation needed] However, advanced development is significantly localised around four areas: Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and Pretoria/Johannesburg. Beyond these four economic centres, development is marginal and poverty is still prevalent despite government efforts. Consequently the vast majority of South Africans are poor. However, key marginal areas have experienced rapid growth recently. Such areas include: Mossel Bay to Plettenberg Bay; Rustenburg area; Nelspruit area; Bloemfontein; Cape West Coast; KwaZulu-Natal North Coast amongst others.

Hope this helps........ Argentina indeed surpasses South Africa in its economical statistics. Cocoliras (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of comparison (if at all, you prove that South Africa is a developing country, but not that Argentina isn't one, considering the situation in the provinces of Misiones, Salta, Jujuy, Mendoza and many other northern provinces). Moreover you are abusing your sources, using Wikipedia and then citing another source that does not prove what you claim (your source states that Argentina's GDP per capita is $3,650; if you want to use this source, I'd be happy to include this figure in the introductory paragraph).

Please read WP:OR, to familiarize yourself with the policy. You can argue your opinion all you want, but four reputable sources (IMF, CIA, World Bank and FTSE) have been cited and all four prove that Argentina is a developing country. Whenever these, or other equally reputable sources, state that Argentina is a developed country (or a dual [sic] country), then you and/or the anon user can edit the article accordingly. But you cannot use your own research and/or comparisons because that violates WP:OR: we are not experts in economics, so our opinions or comparisons do not matter, only reputable and verifiable sources can be used. --the Dúnadan 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

South Africa gives a possibly clear example of what Argentina is. Since South Africa is a developed country and its levels of Human Development look lower than Argentina. The user may be using this to reach the point that if South Africa is a developed country, Argentina must.

Actually, that idea in the SA article does not have any source or support. South Africa's article cut says the next;

In many respects, South Africa can be considered a developed country.[CITATION NEEDED] However, advanced development is significantly localised around four areas: Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and Pretoria/Johannesburg. Beyond these four economic centres, development is marginal and poverty is still prevalent despite government efforts. Consequently the vast majority of South Africans are poor. However, key marginal areas have experienced rapid growth recently. Such areas include: Mossel Bay to Plettenberg Bay; Rustenburg area; Nelspruit area; Bloemfontein; Cape West Coast; KwaZulu-Natal North Coast amongst others.

That may be incorrect, however, both Africa and Argentina exhibits 'developed' characteristics. If you mean by Dual[sic] a dual-based country like I though (developed and developing) then you may be right. Cocoliras (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading what other users have been telling you and/or the anon user? Stop comparing Argentina with South Africa. That does not prove your point. You need to cite reputable sources that clearly state that Argentina is a developed country. No single source says that, since Argentina, as recognized by all economist in reputable institutions is a developing nation. You and/or the anon user have violated WP:OR, WP:3RR and your reiterated reversions and insistence on inserting your OR is WP:POVPUSH and border on WP:Vandalism. Please stop. --the Dúnadan 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Price Purchase Parity is better than GNI because it takes into account currency fluctuations which Argentina is especially sensitive too. The Argentine Peso is kept artificially low by the government to boost exports so the GNI is around $7 000 but PPP adjusted (averaged according to purchasing power) is closer to $16 000. This is reflected in the higher standard of living compared to other Latin American nations as shown by the HDI index.

The United States is Argentina's second largest trading partner but it only accounts for 15% of all trade. So 85% is with other countries like Brazil and China where the Peso goes further. That's compared to Mexico which trades mostly with the USA and is essentially a low cost manufacturing base. Hence the lack of difference in Mexican GNI and PPP GDP figures.

If you're inferring that PPP GDP isn't reliable then that's incorrect. It's the other way around, nominal GNI figures do not account for purchasing power relative to other countries. Most sources such as the CIA World factbook and IMF state the PPP figure. The World bank use the nominal GNI figure.

Both figures are actually useful depending on the circumstances. Nominal GNI are used mostly by North American institutions because they're interest lies in national income compared to the US economy. The rest of the world would want to know the PPP figure.

Argentina is measured as an 'Upper middle income nation' by the World Bank and the country does have a developed manufacturing, agricultural and educational infrastructure but it's very poor credit rating (similar to Libya) and high corruption within both the private and government sectors are not to the standard of a developed nation.

This alone doesn't mean that the country isn't developed. Also, the World Bank's own site states that "GNI does not, by itself, constitute or measure welfare or success in development".[7]

Argentina according to both standard of living and GDP is more developed than most countries of the Americas except the USA and Canada and around the same level of development of poorer OECD nations such as Portugal, Greece and Poland which are all generally considered developed nations, just not wealthy.

As most developing countries are very poor and have a lack of developed infrustructure, Argentina is classed as a either a newly industrialised economy or emerging market. Not quite as developed as first world nations but outpacing other developing nations. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

talk:Coldheartedman|talk]]) 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I never intended to get into economic details, since I'm not trying to prove a point, but demanding sources to substantiate the preposterious claims being pushed by some users. I will, however, defend my edits on both grounds: through Wikipedia policy and through economic argumentation.

No, PPP is not better than using nominal rates, but a different way of presenting a differnet picture. PPP is created with a small set of goods. That is why many economist dislike PPP, and continuous revisions are being made to recalculate what an artificial "purchasing power" is (the most recent reduced China's and India's GDP by a very significant percentage)[8]. Secondly, Argentina is an open economy and an active participant of international trade, which is done not in an inexistent parity but he existing exchange parity. Whether it is unfinished goods (the largest percentage of trade) or finished goods, the revenues obtained that sustain the companies -and salaries- are received in nominal exchange rates, not artificial non-existing parities. PPP and nominal exchange rates both offer different pictures of the economy. That is why CIA decided to adopt the nominal figures along with the PPP. For an overview of the limitations of both indicators see [9]

Secondly, I never implied that GDP PPP is wrong. But it is not the measure used by the World Bank or any other financial institution to classify developed countires. Therefore, using it to make a claim contradicting reliable sources is, not only WP:OR but an erroneous OR.

You are mistaking "standard of living" with "human development". High HDI does not imply economic development, and a high GDP per capita does not imply status of development. Many countries in the Middle East show very high levels of both, and yet unequal opportunities and uneven distribution of income -like Argentina- make them developing nations as well. Infrastructure is conducive to economic growth but does not guarantee it. And Argentina lags behind in infrastructure compared to OECD countries with merely 734 km. of expressways connecting only a few of the major cities (compare the 6,335 km of Mexican expressways, one of the poorest OECD's members). Railway communications have not been modernized. Economic growth is highly centralized in the Capital Federal, whereas poverty affects 57% of the population in northern provinces[10].

Your claim that Argentina is the most developed country in the Americas after the US and Canada is again an unsubstantiated claim, and similar claims have been made at Chile, Uruguay, Puerto Rico (the closest to reality), Costa Rica and Mexico, while they debase other countries, just as you did Mexico and the anon did South Africa. But again, it doesn't matter on how you interpret data, but on what economists say. Argentina is classified as a developing nation by all pertinent authorities,[11], [12], [[13] or as a secondary emerging economy (not even an "advanced emerging economy")[14]. Is Argentina a newly industrialized country? So are Turkey, Brazil, China, India and the Philippines, all developing nations.

Criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "truth" (or rather, what you perceive to be the "truth" or what I perceive to be truth) but verifiability. If you find a reputable economic or research institution that classifies Argentina as a "developed country, rivaling European countries" then you might add the claim. Otherwise, it must be deleted to comply with Wikipedia's policies and standards.

--the Dúnadan 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed 'Developing' because it's a broad indicator of little value. Unless Argentina is a special case in contrast to other country pages there is no reason to state Argentina is 'developing' as 80% of the world is developing according to the IMF. I've change the sentence to bring it in line with other Latin American country pages such as Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and others. The fact that Argentina has the highest level of GDP and HDI index figure in Latin America is not debatable. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Emerging economies are by nature developing economies. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I won't debate that, emerging economies are indeed developing, so the introduction seems fine to me, with the exception that GDP per capita is the highest if measured in purchasing power parity. (Usually, 'income per capita refers to Gross National Income, and not to Gross Domestic Product, see the World Bank's notes on both indicators too).

As for your unilateral removal of the perfectly sourced ethnicity paragraph, I reinserted it. There was a debate and a consensus was reached. Should you wish to reopen the debate, according to WP:Consensus, you must discuss it first to obtain a new consensus. If you do not trust the DNA test, you must bring equally valid reputable sources (i.e. other DNA tests) that contradict the results. Calling it pseudo-science on personal grounds, like you did in Demographics of Argentina when you deleted it, is not enough to comply with WP:Verifiability.

--the Dúnadan 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the GDP PPP per capita: you say this number is around the 17.000 US Dollar and then you use the IMF as a reference, but if go to the IMF web site and ask for the specific studies, you will see that the Argentinian GDP PPP per capita is about the 13.000 US Dollar.So please use the correct reference (I don't think there is one) or just adjust the number to the REALITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.58.2 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not with the figure. The FMI had a previous figure of $16,000+ GDP PPP per capita, but now has revised it to $13,000, even though GDP per capita (in nominal terms) increased. This is an example of why we need the two figures. PPP (Purchasing power parity) is a non-existing exchange parity; it is a calculation that tries to compare the purchasing power that a dollar has in different countries (i.e. $1 dollar buys more of X in Argentina than in the United States, and therefore, the "purchasing power" parity is lower than the official exchange rate). This PPP is being constantly revised due to inflation—and Argentina has experienced high inflation in recent years—which therefore leads to a lower purchasing power, even if nominal GDP per capita actually increased to almost $7,000 (this one is based on actual parities or exchange rates). So, to make the story short, the 13,000 figure is right, and it is the most updated one. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys i dont really think Argentina is a developed country at all...i never heard it in any article as developed, and to write in that is developed would just be truly unrealistic,lets stick to the facts!and is the PPP 13,000 or 18,000?last week it was 13,000 so why now 18,000?Supposely there is no developed country yet in L.A...the closest ones are Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Mexico! EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--the Dúnadan 03:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

--the Dúnadan 03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I don't have a "serious problem" with that part of the article, but I do have a "serious problem" with users (registered or otherwise) who delete, change or discredit verifiable primary sources based on personal opinions, and I am not saying that you are such a user, but since you mention that it is not the first time that "I" discuss it (in reality, several users joined me), you should take the time to evaluate their arguments thoroughly, before implying that I have "problems" with a section. I think other users actually have "problems" with the content proved by those genetic studies.

Now, I read the link you provided, and I assume you did so too. Let me cite/translate what it says, referring to the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires:

"In this way, considering the results as a whole, it has been proven that in the sample in question, more than fifty percent of the samples exhibit mitochondrial halogroups [which are] characteristic of the original populations [i.e. Amerindian], 52% in the sample of the Central Region [of Argentina], 56% in the Sample of the South South-West and 66% in the region North North East. On the other hand, 20% exhibit the "T" variant, characteristic of the original populations at the DYS199 locus. The detection of both original [i.e. Amerindian] lineages, both through through the father and the mother side, is restricted to a 10%. The population that does [not] present any Amerindian contribution in the Central Region is 43%, in the South South West is 37% and in the North North-East is 27%. In average, less than 40% (36.4%) of the population exhibits no Amerindian lineage on both sides, [lineages] which could be European, Asiatic or African."

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

Now, see the "tone" of what you wrote [emphasis mine]:

"A study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires has estimated that approximately 56% of the population has at least one Amerindian ancestor, though this takes into account many individuals of primarily European background with distant indigenous ancestry."

Are you really citing what the article says? I really think the guys at Clarín did a better job at interpreting the results.[19]. But anyway, at least the information is still in the article.

Please note, I repeat, that scientific studies are not "official" (by which you mean accepted by the government). Politicians are not experts in genetics, geneticists are the experts, and politicians cannot say whether a scientific proof is valid or not, only scientists can. I think the authors of es:Composición genética de Argentina did an extraordinary job in that article. I wish we could make a similar job here at the English Wikipedia. I think part of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia in Latin American articles is that not all the population is properly represented, which has led to constant overstatements of the "White" population of their countries (and even to prove who has more "Whites"), as I have seen in the articles of Chile, Mexico, Brazil, even Latin Americans, and the like.

--the Dúnadan 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

--Ale4117 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

--the Dúnadan 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

--Ale4117 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Third Opinion

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

Fourth Opinion

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

Controversial issue

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

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

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

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

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

It's important to note that no national government in the world uses DNA testing from small samples to determine ethnicities of it's people in fact the US census bureau prohibits scientific studies such as DNA testing for allocating data[23].

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

African Ancestors (CGFyL-UBA, 2005)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the Ad hominem attack. It’s not uncommon to see such techniques being used when there’s nothing constructive to say.

Now to claim that study is flawed due to the fact that it 1) was extracted in public hospitals (which many in Argentina avoid). Or because 2) it’s crank science is nothing BUT a subjective and rather unsubstantiated opinion.

To have 90% of Argentineans listed as white is completely absurd, as there are several studies besides the one being used in the article, that conclude that the figures are way over blown. Why do you feel the necessity of keeping deceiving information within the scope of the demographics section?

Last but not least, not all articles about countries are identical nor standardized, neither should they be. And considering the ludicrous figure of 90% that some editors are trying to push, there’s got to be additional information to counter-balance that claim.

Likeminas (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

According to a genetical level the average structure of the Argentine population contains 79.9% of European contribution, and 15.8% of Amerindian contribution[27][28] in which this genetic marker is present in 56% of the Argentine population meaning that the amerindian contribution could rank in that proportion from 0,01% up to 15,8%, still though the main genetical contribution is european. Now at a Phenotypical level used worldwide to stablish the ethnicity of a country[29], Argentina stands at 90% white or belonging to a European ethnic group [30].

Regards,

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

Fercho85, I'm not attacking anyone. Actually, I was personally attacked when I was called biased in one of the edit descriptions and when a different user explicitly accused me of editing based on bad faith. Nonetheless, I'll assume good faith from you and despite previous consensus agreements such as this [31]. I'll also assume you believe in objectivity and have taken your time to read, analyze and think thoroughly all of the arguments exposed in this discussion. I do think there’s a very strong argument for the inclusion of the study and user the Dúnadan did a very good job at explaining why it is relevant to the section.

However, at this point, most NPOV arguments for and against the addition of the study have been exhausted. And I believe we have reached a point where some arguments are just Begging the question. So I propose we give the discussion a rest. Let it cool down a bit, and let other people have a say as well.

As most of us probably already know, a mediation request has been filed and while the mediation is non-biding, it is important that we all participate in the process as it will give us a chance to finally reach a consensual agreement.

Likeminas (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Déjà vu? [35] Hahah... I was going to stay out of this debate, but this situation is absolutely hilarious. Fercho is using the exact same words I told him, when he refused to accept the reliable sources by simply "saying they were biased" and that they "had been contradicted" but failing to produce or provide the soruces to back up his claims! The exact same words. Please let us all take this discussion seriously by debating with strong arguments backed up with reliable sources, not simply misusing language and/or misquoting Wikipedia's policies.

I wasn't planning of coming back after having continuously reverted unjustified deletions of perfectly sourced information—endorsed, may I say again, by the Ministry of Education and Science of Argentina—first by Fercho, but then by unrelenting anonymous users. But then, after I saw Fercho ignoring a previously agreed consensus and using my own arguments to do so (and even mis-quoting some of the same policies I quoted when debating with him!) I thought it would be wise for me to step in.

I will simply summarize my position in five basic points:

The genetic studies were conducted by the scientific community, endorsed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Argentina, and are fully verifiable and thus reliable;
If there are additional studies that may seem to contradict the studies mentioned above, then they must also be fully verifiable and reliable; some users say that the genetic studies have been contradicted, by they have been unable to provide a link or a reference to back their claims;
The only additional studies presented actually did not contradict the original study, but rather complemented it. Please read the discussion of 21 June 2008, or click on this link to follow the argumentation
If there are any other equally reliable sources, then by WP:NPOV all sources and all opinions must be stated. 'Hiding information is not NPOV.
Last but not least, arguing that the articles of United States and Brazil show nothing about genetics studies does not mean that this article shouldn't. If any user is interested in doing so, they can debate the pertinence of including them in the aforementioned articles as well.

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

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

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

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

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

SamEV if you're going to attempt to be a mediator, please at least try to be an impartial one.

Likeminas (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

This has gotten really frustrating.

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

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

Disagree:
Ale4117
Coldheartedman
Fercho85
Sherlock4000
Lehoiberri
SamEV
Opinoso

Agree:
Tanthalas39
Likeminas
CenterofGravity
the Dúnadan
Vassyana
echidna2007
AndeanRock

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

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

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

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

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

A subject being divisive doesn’t mean it should be omitted. There are hundreds or perhaps thousands of topics within Wikipedia that divide contributors. There are the articles about Abortion, Euthanasia and Capital punishment just to name a few. Does their divisiveness prevent contributors from arguing and including relevant information to each one of them?

If you have any reservations regarding the current presentation of the studies and wish to give them a more subtle twist, please feel free to do so.

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

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

Relevance to the section.

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

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

Articles in Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

"Does their divisiveness prevent contributors from arguing and including relevant information to each one of them?"

Yes! What makes you think it doesn't? But remember, not everyone is agreed that the genetic studies are relevant here...

"If you have any reservations regarding the current presentation of the studies and wish to give them a more subtle twist, please feel free to do so."

I'll wait till it's definitely decided whether they stay or go. SamEV (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we must improve the actual section, after all the vandalism and disruptive edits from anons the ethnicity section now stands as unencylopedic and rather incomprehensible. Still though I believe that the main problem here is the mixing of genetical terms. According to a genetical level the average structure of the Argentine population contains 79.9% of European contribution, and 15.8% of Amerindian contribution[37][38] in which this genetic marker is present in 56% of the Argentine population meaning that the amerindian contribution could rank in that proportion from 0,01% up to 15,8%, still though the main genetical contribution is european.

Now at a Phenotypical level, Argentina stands at 90% white or belonging to a European ethnic group [39]. It's important to note that no national government in the world uses DNA testing from small samples to determine ethnicities of it's people in fact the US census bureau prohibits scientific studies such as DNA testing for allocating data.

Cheers,

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

Despite repeating myself thousands of times, Fercho, with all due respect, you are misreading and/or misunderstanding the tests. For starters the first study you cite sampled the city of Buenos Aires, not the entire country, which, of course, received the greatest percentage of European immigrants. The study does not sample nor analyzes the Amerindian contribution of the entire province of Buenos Aires or the rest of the provinces, the most notable exception being the northern province where the Amerindian contribution is significant, based on the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires, and even according to the same study you are citing (read second column of page 114 of the downloadable .pdf file).

Secondly, in that same study (with the restricted sample to the city of Buenos Aires), all members of the sample had Amerindian contribution, of which the mean was 15.8%. That does not mean that this number represents the highest end of the rank, as you imply. Some had higher, some had lower contributions, all of which averaged at 15.8%. Even under the restricted area of the sample, some individuals in the city of Buenos Aires do have higher Amerindian contributions. Needless to say, the same applies for the entire country.

Finally, your third link [40] can hardly be considered a serious source for genetic research.

To conclude, the study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires, I repeat myself, endorsed by the Government of Argentina and the Ministry of Science and Education, is the most comprehensive, in that all regions of the country were sampled. They estimated that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian ancestors on either lineage (which of course, could vary from 1 to 100%). If we apply the mean contribution of the city of Buenos Aires (but good logic tells us not to do that because the city of Buenos Aires is not representative of the entire country), then those 56% would have a mean of 15.8%. But, like I said, there is no reason to believe that the city of Buenos Aires and its population is representative of the entire country (much less of the guaraní population of Corrientes).

--the Dúnadan 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

= Mediation Cabal case

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

Layout of Article

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

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

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

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

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

You've done a great job; it looks a lot better. Although some section have to many pictures (like "Cities and Metropolitan Areas"), whereas other sections (most notably "Government") do not. I think taking 2 pics of the over-crowded sections and adding a couple on the empty sections (like the Casa Rosada for the Gov't Section) would be a good idea.

Also, with the aim of repositioning Argentina as a "good article", I also suggest trying to find references or sources for the many ^{[citation needed]} all throughout the article. I believe there are even more claims that as of now have not been challenged and that also do need a source. I also think the history section should be restructured; it is almost entirely focused on the last 30 years; Argentina has a rich history dating back to Pre-Colombian times, and a more comprehensive review of the developments of the 19th and early 20th centuries would enhance the quality of that section and the article. That's my five cents. --the Dúnadan 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Site Tampering

As I was reviewing the Article for Argentina, I noticed that someone has maliciously tampered with the religion section. I do not know what is supposed to replace the derogatory terms so I cannot make any recommendations for changes.Kpiskin (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the problem, can you be more specific about what you're refering to as "derogatory"? dockingman^talk 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine now; must have been fixed for fine to start with. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Dont they speak welsh and hebrew? Add that to the list.Fila934NorthBayTrain (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Jewish immigrants who came here in the late XIX century and early spoke Idish, not Hebrew. I do know a few people here who speak Hebrew, but it's a language they have learned at school or a an educational institute, not a language they speak at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.188.214 (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

?

Can't we undo this article to the past "Good Article" version? Would that work? I'm telling you because I have no idea what is the time edits last in wikipedia's database.--J.C. (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia remain in the page history permanently, so technically speaking we can always revert to any previous version. However, the article may have been removed from GA status due to changes in the GA standards or because the article may not have met the standards in the first place, as opposed to a decrease in the article's quality. If that is the case, reverting back to the GA version would not help, and in fact it could damage the article's quality. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And if the GA standards haven't changed would it work?--J.C. (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be complicated. As all articles in the encyclopedia continue to grow and improve in quality, what was considered a "good article" (or a "featured article"), after reassessment (which does not necessarily mean that GA or FA standards changed) may no longer be so. Two years ago a small article could have easily passed the GA or FA test, since in comparison with other articles in Wikipedia, it was far better.

Even if it was the case that some recent editions may have damaged the quality of the article, many editions have actually increased the accuracy or expanded the content of other sections. To revert both good and bad editions would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many editors will have to reinsert their "good" edits, or what they consider to be "good" edits, and we are back to square one in 4 months. I rather recommend polishing what we already have based on the criteria set forth for a GA. That way, the article will be even better than what it was before it lost GA status.

--the Dúnadan 04:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. So it's better to follow expanding the article. You helped understand better how wikipedia works. Thanks--J.C. (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gross Domestic Product (At Power Purchasing Parity)

Why does this article demostrates a different GDP(PPP) value every week. Last week it was at 13,000 and now at 18,000? I heard a couple of months ago that chile had the highest GDP(PPP) in the Latin American Countries and it only has a little bit pass the 13,000$ mark so how come argentina is so high?a country with a 18,000$ USD PPP is surely a developed country, while argentina truly isn't(according to articles). So whats the deal?who is changing it every time?EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) You are RIGHT....The numbers are for 2013!!!! not for 2007. Argentina just has a per capita income of 13.000 USD according to both the CIA Factbook and the IMF.

Please CORRECT that: it is 13,000 USD, not 18,000 (this is just an IMF estimate for 2013, as can be read in the link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.82 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To be considered a developed country Argentina should have a much higher number of patent filings in the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization): while the USA filed 52,000 new patents in 2007, Japan 27,000 new patents, Germany 18,000 new patents, Britain 5,000 new patents, Italy 3,000 new patents, Spain 1,000 new patents (the European Union 46,000 new patents).....Argentina, just 20!!!!!! Not a developed nation.

Mention of Chile in article's introduction

"Argentina has the highest Human Development Index level and the second highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power parity in Latin America after its neighbor Chile[6] and its total national GDP is the 23rd largest in the world.[7][8]"

i think that the part where it says "after it's neighbor Chile" is unnecesary since this article is about argentina and not about chilean economic performance or it's latest developments. on top of that, if you consider this as relevant, in chile's article it should say that is "the second most developed country by HDI after it's neighbor argentina" which it doesnt. hope tangerine is happy now and have something interesting to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- Alexf⁴² 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Chile, as it seemed superfluous to me. There is also no need to have three Wikilinks to Chile in the opening page of the article. E P 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --the Dúnadan 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Density

What happened to the pop. density? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinneeb (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need to make a comment about this issue, since lately in the Argentine American article is being changed by a user who is also trying to "Whitenize" Mexico's Demographics. To AndeanRock, I think it is you who hasn't set out a foot outside of Salta. I may not live in Argentina, but I have visited the country many times, and I have set my foot out of Buenos Aires (both the city and the province). I have been to the Patagonia, Cordoba, Entre Rios, Rosario, and Misiones, and these Places I have been I see that the majority of the population is White. I do doubt the 97% figure, but I think the white population is around 80%.

And one more thing, AndeanRock, you are so wrong when it comes to the CIA and 9/11. The CIA did predict 9/11 was going to happen, but it was the Bush Administration who view the intelligence as not serious. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why only cite the UBA Study, why don't you cite the other studies, like the University of California Study, which says that majority of Argentines (78% in the UC Study) are European. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is one thing you and I agree is that the 97% is quite ridiculous, and the population is probably around 80%.Lehoiberri (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for going off topic, this is just a stupid question. I am confused with the word Porteño, does it refers to the people of the Capital only, or does it refer to both the people of the Capital and people of the Provence of Buenos Aires? Lehoiberri (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Porteño (plural: porteños) is the common adjective used for people or things from Buenos Aires City. The word porteño means, roughly translated, "people from the port." People from Buenos Aires Province are referred to as bonaerenses.--190.226.0.35 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dunadan :)

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

Please refrain from personal attacks (i.e. paranoic), and show respect to your fellow users. Keep this debate clean. I recommend that you read my comment again, since you missed the entire point. And also, please read Lehoiberri's comment as well. To start with, I was not the user that tried to De-Whitenize Argentina; he refers to another user. Secondly, I am not speaking about a conspiracy theory to "hide mestizo". I referred to Lehoiberris "theory" that all Mexicans hate Argentines "because they are White" (and again, he referred to anotheruser who, I suppose, is Mexican, not me). So, please, read the entire contributions first before coming up with spurious and unacceptable accusations in an otherwise educated debate.

Please, also review the two genetic studies cited above. Please feel free to read the entire summary page, not endorsed by UBA (you also missed that point), but endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Argentine Government). Please read the last three remarks, again, written by UBA, and endorsed by the Ministry of Education of the Government. Last but not least, please read some sources on ethnography. Genetics is the natural science that serves as the foundation for ethnography, as a social science. The UBA, and the UC Davis reports are not misplaced, at all. It does not cause confusion; it is rather informative.

Last but not least, feel free to add studies of admixture in all articles of all countries in the world. This would be specially informative for Latin American countries, in which—I repeat myself—White Settlement was not based on isolation but on racial intermingling that constructed a complex caste system, Argentina included (as cited above with Romero's book). Due to the complex ethnographic reality of Latin America, in contrast to other places of White Settlement—predominantly British—marked by social barriers that prohibited intermingling, admixture studies are rightly placed and informative when describing ethnicity and origins in Latin America. For example, they have led to the recognition of the large African contribution in eastern states of Mexico and Peru, otherwise ignored. And like UBA's report say, they lead to building a new and truer identity for LA countries.

Cheers,

--the Dúnadan 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you argue that the study is flawless, but the study, flawless or not, stands because, by being published in Academic journals, and endorsed by the government of Argentina, fully complies with all the requirements of WP:Verifiability. Why do I say this? Because the only way you can disprove the study (this, and the many others presented) is not with your opinion (your five points above), but by presenting equally valid reputable sources that prove that the first valid reputable source is wrong. You haven't done that. I can engage in a logical argument to prove some of your points wrong, but that's not what we are supposed to do here. We are supposed to present reliable sources. Until then...

If you want to know my opinion, I really don't care what a person looks like. To call someone white because he looks white is an unencyclopedical as saying that the sun is as big as the moon because that is the way they "look" to us. That is why genetics and biology play an important role in ethnography. How much Amerindian contribution is necessary to be classified as Mestizo? I don't know. Never have I read that it is supposed to be 50-50%, and if you are 51% then you are White? Ludicrous. That, of course, will take us to admixture genetic studies, something Fercho wanted to avoid. But I do not intent to classify Argentine population as "Mestizo". That is beyond my intentions. What we can do here in Wikipedia, which will be perfectly compliant with the policies and rules of the community, would be to cite each reliable and verifiable source: CIA, Britannica and the census, which claim that Argentina is mostly White (what they "look" like, as you said). Then we cite the genetic studies that claim that that European genetic contribution on the average Argentine is 78%, and that 56% of Argentines were proven to have at least one Amerindian ancestor. No classifications of what a "Mestizo" is nor that Argentina is "Mestizo". We are citing reliable sources, relevant to the section, and we are saying simply what they are saying, nothing more, nothing less.

And please, review other genetic studies and other sources (not opinions), I am not setting this genetic study as the "paramount" revelation. I have even brought to the discussion table books on the History of Argentina, written by Argentine historians themselves!

--the Dúnadan 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Dúnadan asked the million dollar question: what is the definition of mestizo. In the caste system, it was 50/50, and 75/25 would have been castizo, and technically you would be just white again even if you have 1/8 Amerindian. Does this hold true anymore? I'm not qualified to answer this a question because it's more a matter of opinion and social structure. I would say that the figures mean that X percent are predominantly European, not necessarily everyone one of those 97% is of "pure" European ancestry. Remember also that many Spaniards and Italians have darker, Mediterranean features which can be confused with an Amerindian "appearance". Depending on what type of genetic study is done, it does not always paint a full picture. If they're testing the Y-DNA or the Mt-DNA, remember that these are passed down by only 1 ancestor out of thousands of recent ancestors. So someone can have a European haplogroup and still be predominantly Amerindian and vice versa. And just as others have stated, any census information will be self-identity, so someone may be very well aware that his great-grandfather was mestizo, but he may self-identify as white. Who are we to tell someone how they should self-identify? Kman543210 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Kman. That is why I do not intend neither to define Mestizo, nor to make judgement values of the sources cited. All the sources presented (either a self-identification census, a CIA figure, or a research paper on genetics) are informative. All sources are being cited and given their due weight. Since all are relevant and relaible, all should be cited. Judgement values of the sources and the conclusions that are drawn out of those sources should not be included (and in fact they are not included) in the text as it stands right now (please read the section in question). That is why I never intended to classify the majority of Argentine's as "Mestizos". Let's not digress from our discussion. Sources are being presented and they are being challenged. I argue that sources cannot be challenged and refuted with mere opinions.

--the Dúnadan 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

"The current Argentine population, is the result of the descents of different waves of immigrants, principally from Europe and also of the miscegenation of these with a mestizo and indigenous minority original from the colonial period. As Australia, Canada or The United States, Argentina is considered to be a country of immigration, whose society has been influenced mostly by an unmigratory massive phenomenon, which took place from middle of the 19th century..."

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

Gaming the system? Do you know the type of accusations you are making? Have you actually read the links you are citing like WP:GAME, WP:BOLD and WP:FANATIC? Go ahead and read them, so you know what kind of thinks you are asking. Gee... stop making spurious accusations, that will only kindle the animosity between us by making an otherwise educated debate a personal one. Who has contradicted me? Who has brought reliable sources to the discussion, besides me? If you wish, I would be more than happy to Request for Mediation.

Please, I ask you, once again, bring reliable sources to the table. It is you who have not been able to prove, with reliable sources that ethnography is not sustained by genetic biology. I repeat, the statements are not misplaced. And the Spanish Wikipedia is not a valid source to cite. :--the Dúnadan 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I ask Dúnadan to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and to stop bothering other users. Opinoso (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I do have a problem. Not with the section, per se, but with the fact that after you improved the section, I improved it even more (some sentences simply did not sound encyclopedic or had weasel words); however you reverted me and called your editions , again, "improvement". --the Dúnadan 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, all my recent improvements are being reverted by Fercho, including changes to sentences that simply do not sound encyclopedic. Moreover, there is no need not to cite the findings of a scientific study. And we are not citing the entire study, just the main findings. The "entire" study includes findings by region in the country. --the Dúnadan 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Too many images

There has been recently a flood of images added to the article. I feel there are now way too many photos, and some should be removed. Opinions? And if so let's discuss which ones should go. If the consensus is to keep all of them, that's fine, but this article now feels "crowded" to me. Am I alone in this? -- Alexf⁴² 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's waaaay too crowed. I have to agree with you.--Tycho (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, not many opinions received since I posted in July but at least I'm not alone in this issue. I'd like some consensus before removing some of them. I'll raise the issue at the project and see what happens. Thanks. -- Alexf⁴² 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Only problem I have is with the history section where some of the images should be spaced out more. Much of the text is narrowed down as you read through the section. Rearranging the images instead of removing them can work better. CenterofGravity (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose I've just reviewed the article, and my opinion is that the images that are currently in it adequately illustrate each of the sections, and are relevant to its content. Additionally, it could be difficult to determine which images are "more relevant", even less to have consensus abut what to leave and what to keep. IMHO, maybe what the article needs is rearranging/resizing the images currently in it, to make it look less "cluttered". Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you agree with us that it is clutered. There are many pics wich can be taken out. In 'music' section: leave only Carlos Gardel (this one is very easy.). In 'history' section: remove "Río de la Plata aboriginals" and Velez Sarsfield (seriously people, WTF are those two doing there?) I want to take out a few more there but lets start with those two. Remove "Sailboats on the Uruguay River" In 'Rivers and Lakes'. In 'flora' remove palo borracho and in 'fauna' the sea lion. In 'Culture' remove "Street in Buenos Aires CBD". We can start with those I mentioned. --Tycho (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, The images need to be arranged so that the textual content does not look overly cluttered. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that amount of images... why crowded? the problem is that most of them have no importance... ·"Ceibo in La Pampa"?? c'mon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParishMaker (talk • contribs) 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No mentioning of Africans, History and Slavery ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may also be interested in reading this

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

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

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

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

Recognized regional languages: Hebrew and Welsh???

Why does it say Welsh and Hebrew are recognized regional languages???

There are Welsh descendants in Chubut, I know. But is Weslsh an officially recognised there (or in any other province)?

The same goes with Hebrew. I'd be quite surprised if it were a recognised regional language, since most of the Jewish immigrants whocame spoke Ydish, not Hebrew.

So, unless someone comes up with a verifiable source stating that this languagews are officially recognised at least somewhere, I think we should erase them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.134.26 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should have been removed from the "recognised regional languages" section in the info box, as I have not seen any sources that state that they are 'recognized'. Ethnologue (SIL) state that there were 25,000 Welsh speakers in Argentina (1998). This seems significant for that language considering that it doesn't give any other specific numbers for speakers outside of Wales besides Argentina. Eastern Yiddish is listed as a language but without any numbers given. They can be mentioned under the language section, but not in the info box without any official recognition. Kman543210 (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Errors in international rankings.

There are numerous errors in this section, and it would be great if someone could go through this and fix it.

Most notably, this page lists it as 26th out of 177 in the rankings for the Failed States index, but according to that index page, it's 151st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendori (talk • contribs) 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

HDI- human development index

the article states Argentina has the highest Human development index in latin america. It is not. Barbados is.189.10.65.233 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Barbados isn't Latin America--190.226.152.234 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

right, Barbados isn't Latinamerica, but it doesn't matter anymore. Because Chile has the highest HDI value of Latinamerica anyway. Argentina remains second. --94.79.133.102 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_per_capita

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_per_capita

[1]