Talk:Demographics of Argentina/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comment

I noticed this comment on an edit summary: "The study is listed on the "Genetic Study", why post it twice, I do believe that you have something against Argentines, since you are posting this in every Argentine page." Even though this comment was not addressed to me, but to another user, I find it very inappropriate. Why would a "Genetic Study" be something against Argentines? Why would Amerindian Admixture be against Argentines? Is being "Amerindian" inferior to being "European"? --the Dúnadan 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it was me who put that comment, I have this question to you, did you even see my edit? That user who that comment was posting on the European sections of this article this statement: "The "Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas of University of Buenos Aires concluded in 2005 a research directed by the Argentine geneticist Daniel Corach (realized on 320 individuals of 9 provinces) from genetical scoreboards established that 56% of the Argentine population has at least one amerindian ancestor". Not once, but two times. The study is mention in the article on its own personal section called "Genetic Studies". That user also posted this in Argentine American. Seeing that user's contribution, I came up with a theory why was he/she was posting this everywhere, but you didn't like my theory in Talk:Argentina. Why mention this study on other sections of the article when it has it own personal section. What that user did was probably vandalism. And it was also redundancy. Lehoiberri (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my response at Talk:Argentina. I agree, it might have been redundancy. But that doesn't justify the personal attack. Also, I recommend that you read what vandalism really is. --the Dúnadan 07:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Seems to be a dispute here. The protection is set to expire within 3 days, so hopefully everything can be worked out. What's the problem, anyway? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many people wish to hide facts from others. My edits had a source from the University of Beunos Aires that as many as 56% of all Argentines may have Amerindian ancestry. And I simply put it in an area pertaining to demographic information, along with European peoples described as ancestors to some Argentines. Many do not wish to see reality, I can't see why this is so unwanted...? Cali567 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith on their part. It's likely more complex than that, anyway :-) What are others' take on things? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem, as usual with the genetical study section. This study though very controversial, has created since a long time several edit wars not only on this article also in the argentina's. To prevent this kind of edit wars on 25 february 2008 I added a full section of every single genetic study of the argentine genome. Nonetheless, several users still insist to add this controversial issue to all the articles in reference to argentine people (ie, Argentine American). As I said this issue prevails from a long time and for what now concerns it is still without a solution. --Fercho85 (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is very honorable, yet not enough. This Amerindian descendency situation has been ignored in EVERY article having to do with Argentine people. Amerindian extraction is no less important or useful in study as European extraction, yet it is always left out. This is not about redundancy as you wish to think, this is about common acknowledgment of Amerindian presence in Argentina. European-like elements are stated to flourish in Argentina... And yet Amerindian elements can be seen in many parts of the culture (not to mention People). Have you ever seen a documentary on Argentina (If you haven't been there) or ventured out of your neck of the woods (If you have)? The Amerindian presence is seen in many Argentines and it has yet to be ackknowledged in these articles. As a Latin American country, with European and Amerindian influences...no less should be expected. Cali567 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the text seems to be cited by this source. I'm not a Spanish speaker, so I can't judge the reliability of it, but it seems to be the central part of thi dispute. Is the problem the source? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly know what you mean Cali567, but you have to understand that until now this is the only consensus that was made and worked out very eficiently reducting the vandalism and edit wars. Besise the amerindian influence that you claim is already on two sections on the article (genetical studies and indigenous people). Please if you are a spanish speaker take a look at composicion etnica de Argentina, where the article refers to the argentine ethnography in a very proper way:[1]

"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..."

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current protected version of the article is good enough. On the "Origins" section, the "Indigneous Peoples" subsection contains a very small paragraph, that reads: "According to the provisional data of INDEC's Complementary Survey of Indigenous Peoples (ECPI) 2004 - 2005[6], only 402,921 indigenous persons (about 1% of the total population) reside in Argentina. An additional 4.5% are labelled as Mestizo[7], and up to 56% of all Argentines have some Amerindian ancestry.". Compared to the subsection dedicated to Europeans, I believe no one can argue that Amerindians are given a lot more space than needed (it can be argued otherwise, actually). So, as it stands, that brief sentence is perfectly fine. More information on genetic studies is found at the end of the article, which explains the genetic admixture of Argentines.

As far as I can tell, the contention is the last addendum to the above sentence "and up to 56% of all Argentines have some Amerindian ancestry". I don't find anything wrong with that particular addendum; it is referenced (by a document, in Spanish, of the University of Buenos Aires, endorsed by the Minsitry of Education, Science and Technology in Argentina).

--the Dúnadan 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at both the Clarin article [2] and the summary of a genetic study [3] on which the Clarin article is based. Although the newspaper article cites 56% of some form or trace of Amerindian lineage in the DNA, I can't find this % in the scientific summary. Clarin says: La combinación de ambos datos dio que hubo cruzamiento y que en el 56% de los casos había un legado indígena en algún lugar del ADN. De este segmento de la población, sólo el 10% era amerindio puro, sin ningún componente europeo. but the scientific summary only says: De esta manera, considerando los resultados en su conjunto se ha podido comprobar que en la muestra considerada más del cincuenta por ciento de las muestras exhiben haplogrupos mitocondriales característicos de las poblaciones originarias, 52% en la muestra de la región Centro, 56% en la muestra del Sur-SurOeste y 66% en la región Nor-NoeEste. Por otro lado, el 20% exhibe la variante “T” característica de las poblaciones originarias en el locus DYS199. Maybe the 56% is present in the original study we don't have access to. The sumary only says más del cincuenta por ciento (more than fifty percent). It would be interesting to have the actual scientific source. (Can I just make clear I had nothing to do with the revert war and Cali567's efforts to add the data in the article. The problem was only brought to my attention after it was posted on Wikipedia's ref-desk [4]. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Argentina's Demographics: Fact and Fiction

It is interesting that some feel it is their duty to keep the "Whiteness" of Argentines intact throughout every Argentine related article... Leaving out the fact that many are part Amerindian... Yes, a study at the University of Buenos Aires has confirmed that 56% of every single Argentine has Amerindian admixture in their DNA. It is interesting that the European aspects of Argentina are dreadfully over exhausted, while it's Amerindian and Mestizo elements, People (Whether Castizo, Mestizo, or Indian), Culture, etc. are swept under the rug, and kept in a state of silence. However, in the real world, and in the REAL Argentina, they are very visible. Most notably the People of Argentina show it in their faces. This country of Latin America is not very different from all other regions in Latin America, although it tries very hard to distance itself... Facts are Facts, And the fact that some do not wish to let the truth be told says much about their character. Argentina's Mestizo Population is quite large, many "Whites" have Indian blood, and the real Argentina is far from a 'European country in Latin America'. Cali567 (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm

It's been a while, but again, I would ask that you strike out the personal attacks. They are not necessary and against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Argentina's Ethnic Groups

Once again, upon the urging of one member, I need to take up an issue here in the talk page. It seems that Photos of Europeans are numerous in Demographics of Argentina, yet Amerindians played a very big part in it's history. I believe we should equally represent Argentina's main ethnic groups, which would be Whites, Mestizos, and Amerindians. Tell, me, what say you? (Of course, I know what you think User:Fercho85! Cali567 (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if there is a section about Indigenous peoples, why not include a picture as well? --the Dúnadan 22:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a picture in the indigenous people section should be included. CenterofGravity (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of the photos in this article: Two photos depicting young children (Who are also more than likely, 'White') is too much. This section is headed "Origins and ethnicity" and it is in an area where ALL ethnic groups are discussed... Tell me then, why should there be 3 photos of Europeans and/or their descendants?I think there should be photos of Whites, Amerinds, Mestizos, Jewish people and/or Asians and the other groups, etc. It shouldn't matter that there is "already a photo of Amerindians that you added". All groups should be present in that section, not just Whites. That is why I put the photo of the Cacique and took out the teenagers at the party (which in itself looks better). Cali567 (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems just fine to have one image but two? I find rather ironic to include two images of amerindian people in a 90% European descent country.

Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What is more ironic is that those Amerindians are the ancestors of million in the "White" group.

Cali567 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mixing Genotype with Phenotype, at a genetical level the average structure of the Argentine population contains 79.9% of European contribution, and 15.8% of Amerindian contribution[5][6] 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[7]. It's also 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 dataDemographics of the USA

--Fercho85 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm afraid you aren't seeing it very clearly. There is no reason to mix up genotype and phenotype. If you have Amerindian ancestry - YOU HAVE Amerindian ancestry. The Argentine could be swarthy (like many of Italian descent) or lily white - Makes no difference to me. It also seems, now that your actually speaking in Talk pages, that you have a dislike for photos of Amerindians. Why when they could be your forefathers?

Also, just because people say they are something, doesn't mean they are. Genetic testing, or small samples, is good enough for the courts, why not you, I ask.

BTW, seems theres an Anonymous user running about - tell him to sign in if you speak to him. Cali567 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Origins: White Section

Argentina has a large population European descended people. Among this group of White people, which some claim is about 89.7-97% of the pop., are those who have some Amerindian ancestry.

This isn't clearly stated in any of the Argentine related articles,.. quite the contrary: It is never mentioned. It is taken out by many pro-European Latin Americans here on Wikipedia. There are many good sources for Amerindian admixture among Whites in Argentina, most being from Argentina itself (University of Buenos Aires).

In these sources it is stated that about 56% of ALL Argentines (Whether they beleive they are White or not) have some Amerindian ancestors. This makes a large portion of those who are thought of as "purely European" descendants of Amerindian tribes. For clarity, it should be noted for the researcher that many of these White Argentines are not fully White (That they may feel purely European is their choice). At Wikipedia we should be careful to list facts. Some say it takes away from the European section and feels "out of place". I say thats ridiculous, and it should be mentioned. Misleading information doesn't help anyone.

It is already stated in another article that some in the large White population of Mexico have Amerindian ancestry. Same goes for other countries in Latin America. Why not Argentina? Is this a case of European bias? The desire of many to be thought of as a "European" country in Latin America?

We do know this: There is no description of White in the Argentine census, but simply self-ascription (i.e. they asked the population, what do you consider yourself to be? Not surprisingly, the great majority of Argentines say "White". (A similar survey reported that the great majority of Chileans also claim to be White or Europeans, yet Mestizos number in the millions and are even counted with Whites in their census... where are those who claim Amerindian extraction?)

Please, what do you think about its inclusion in the article in the European/White section (where it should be).

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/genetics_the_mythbuster_the_ca.php http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html - In Spanish. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18401351 - This says they are predominantly White with 20% Amerindian admixture. http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/17177183/Argentine_population_genetic_structure_large_variance_in_Amerindian_contribution

Cali567 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, I don't think your first attack on the other editors is productive. I hope you would consider striking it out. Instead, focus on your sources and what you actually want to say. In terms of your sources, I'm not sure about using a blog like ScienceBlogs and the rest seem like individual genetic studies. Is most of the article based on similar or other types of studies? Is that the issue? However, I'm not sure what use do you have in mind on this article. So far it looks like just a small mention at Demographics_of_Argentina#Indigenous_peoples. If you want to this information on other articles, I would ask that you either mention it on their talk pages or just mention that it was discussed for this article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not recient it was lenghtly discussed, here and at Argentina's talk page. On June 2008 to prevent this kind of issues I created the Genetic Studies section (in which all the genetic studies are clearly cited), nonetheless only Cali567 kept citing this mentioned study all over the article.

This genetic study is now cited three times whereas it only should be stated at the indigenous and genetical study section. Finally, on a previous consensus it was decided that only one picture of amerindian people could be added even though this user reciently added two images thus removed sourced statements.

Regards,

--Fercho85 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. It doesn't matter if it was discussed months ago (and six months is a LOOOONG time here). While you created the section, let's see what Cali567 has in mind, and try to form some agreement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is fine that you added a "GeneticStudies Section", but the main problem we are having here is that many would like to add this information in an area that it fits into and not just kick it to the corner of these articles. If this country, Argentina, is always said to be mainly of European heritage and most everyone describes themselves as White, what of the 56% who also have Amerindian ancestors? It seems it would be OK to add that many in the White pop. have Amerindian blood. This is the largest group, therefore very important. If the article only states 85-97% of the country is White, would good is that? What about researchers wanting a fast glance about their origins. It certainly isn't 100% European. Cali567 (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cali567,
There's a problem here and is about POV.

1)Cali, you state that some users want to kick this genetic information into the corner of these articles, but in the other hand, you want to post it in the front like a welcome carpet.
I think we all agree that these scientific studies are all reliable sources. But who are you to determine the importance of those studies and what is more, where to place them?
The point is that there's no definition on who's white and who's not, so there's no reason to add a link to these genetic studies every time an article mentions that most argentines are white or of european descent.

2)You have to take into account that the fact that half the argentines have been proved to have at least 1 mestizo forefather is not strong enough as to deny that Argentina is a country of mostly European heritage. Do you understad this?

3)You also compare Argentina with Mexico, but these two countries have a really different origin. Argentina is a country of immigrants, Mexico is not. While the majority of mexicans descend from the mixture of spaniards and amerindians that took place many centuries ago, argentines descend mostly from the immigrants that came 150 years ago. It is true that there was a small population of mestizo locals before that, and that is the reason why half the argentines have at least one mestizo forefather, but that's all of it. You see? For example, Buenos Aires(where most immigrants settled) had 500.000 locals before the immigrants came, and we received more than 6 millions of white immigrants.
I think there's a clear difference there. Not all Latin American countries share the same story and ancestry.

4) You seem to be trying to state that Argentina is a mestizo country, just because half of us have at least one mestizo forefather.
That is your personal point of view, and not the truth. Genetic studies proved that half of us have a slight ammount of amerindian admixture, nothing more, it is you who has come to the conclussion that we are all mestizos. Having one mestizo forefather does not make you mestizo.

5) The evidence supporting that we are mostly european is too large to ignore. What do you want me to tell you? Genetic studies have proved that our average population is 80% european, not 50% nor 60%.... 80%! That means we only have 20% of amerindian admixture, and only present on half our population. Do you realize how small the amerindian contribution is? It's like half the population having one or two mestizo great-grandparents and 6 or 7 european great-grand parents, and the other half having all 8 great-grandparents of european origin.
Do you really think we are a mestizo country? I think Argentina is rather a European Immigrants country with, at most, an amerindian touch.

I'm not pro-european, but I'm not pro-amerindian either.
I don't think being a mestizo is bad, but neither is being white Cali.
I don't think your intentions are bad, I know you're looking for the truth, but I think you are looking the wrong way.

Regards,

--Grimshep (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of the Genetic Study

I want to discuss the reference of "56% of the Argentineans has amerindian ancestry" This one appointment comes from a misunderstanding of the Clarín article. Dr. Corach's study, on which Silvina Heguy was based to write the article, never reaches that conclusion. I will copy/peaste the comment of another user in the spanish Wikipedia:

"El estudio analizó 100 muestras del sur de Argentina, 120 muestras del centro y 100 muestras del norte. Si sacamos un promedio de esas 320 muestras obtenemos que un 56%(en verdad un 58%) contenía genes amerindios. Como se habrán dado cuenta, no se tuvo en cuenta que más de la mitad de la población se encuentra en el centro del país, por lo tanto ese 56% no se refiere a la población argentina, sino al promedio entre estos 3 grupos de muestras. Clarín sin embargo, decidió exagerar diciendo que el 56% de los argentinos poseen genes amerindios; sacando sus propias conclusiones, cuando las conclusiones del estudio no decían eso.

De haberse querido obtener el porcentaje de descendientes de amerindios de argentina se habrían analizado un número de muestras proporcional a la densidad de población de cada sector del país. O sea la mayoría de las muestras habría provenido de las ciudades más pobladas(casi todas en el centro del país), como Buenos Aires, Rosario, Mendoza, Santa Fe, etc.. Algo así como 200 muestras del centro del país, 70 del norte, y 30 del sur.

Si alguien no me cree, le ruego por favor que cite una referencia al estudio verdadero, e indique allí dónde es que se cita que un 56% de los Argentinos tienen genes Amerindios."

There says: The study analyzed 100 samples of the south of Argentina, 120 samples of the center and 100 samples of the north. If we get an average from those 320 samples we obtain that a 56% (in truth a 58%) contained amerindian genes. Since they realize, one did not consider that more than half of the population is in center of the country, therefore that 56% do not talk about all the Argentine population, but to the average between these 3 groups of samples. Clarin nevertheless, decided to exaggerate saying that 56% of the Argentineans have amerindian genes; drawing its own conclusions, when the conclusions of the study did not say that.

If we had wanted to obtain the percentage of descendants of amerindian of all Argentinean they would have analyzed a proportional number of samples to the density of population of each sector of the country. That is most of the samples it would have come from the populated cities more (almost all in center of the country), like Buenos Aires, Rosario, Mendoza, Santa Fe, etc. Something as well as 200 samples of the center of the country, 70 of the north, and 30 of the south.

If anybody does not beleave me, please a reference to the true study, and indicates there where it is that appointment that a 56% of the Argentineans have Amerindian genes.

And this user shows a very more serious article: http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html

Regards! Maria.

Syria/Lebanon

Why is the fact that Syria and Lebanon were the 3rd major source of immigration after Italy and Spain[8] ignored? Codik (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)