Talk:Argentina/Archive 6

Why are the unofficial estimations of illegal aliens deleted
Why?? Most sources unofficial sources estinate the same i put two sources Why were they deleted????????????

And why was deleted the information about the african illegal aliens?? There were sources. According to the government an african arrive everyday to Buenos Aires....

Because its not offical, thats why it was deleted. And no You must have misread the article, the article says that there were two Africans found on a ship and then Deported. This is completely different from what you stated before.

So? I said that unofficial surces cited that number several souces in fact.

And i wasn't speaking about another article.

Its not offical theres no need for what MSN thinks about the subject.

They are not from msn!! They are unofficial (not from the government) stadistics. They are in Clarin and Newsweek and some other sites.


 * Hi. I know the guy from Newsweek, he's only 21 years old and probably just took the Clarin statistic.--Damifb 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to put what any Newspaper says its a government level issue not what the news papers think. Especially if it Clarin.

Anyway, i'm pretty sure that our government don't give us official stadistics because they are legalizing mllions to obtai votes (specially this year), almost a million only la year!!.

Climate
The temperature of 51ºC recorded at Bahia Blanca is false! This year reached a maximum of 40ºC, not 51ºC. The true record high is 49.1ºC at Villa de María. http://www.meteonet.com.ar/?mod=biblioteca&id=94 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.122.117.46 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Anyone who reverts this change are breaking 3RR and NPOV, will be reported)
Does this threat make any sense at all? User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the English is terrible, and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Please see my comment above to such threat.--Diegou 05:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires has been the capital of Argentina since 1880 (before that, the country had no capital yet.

Hi, I want to know if there is a discussion about this sentence or just someone put in there without explanation. Thank you. BorisDelMas 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who wrote that; perhaps it could be rephrased. Check also Federalization of Buenos Aires. --Mariano (t/c) 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. Federalization of Buenos Aires was achieved in 1880, but it was the capital since the May Revolution BorisDelMas 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he/she meant that there was no 'de facto' capital. It was first declared capital in 1853, not at May revolution, and then again in 1860, but it was not unltil 1880 that the authorities finally installed in Buenos Aires, so it's hard to say it was the capital before that.
 * The sentence is nontheless poor and should be rewritten.--Mariano (t/c) 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the federalization ut weas the capital of the province of Buenos Aires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Argentina 97% white figure
A couple of times I have tried to clarify the laughably inaccurate statistic of Argentina being "97% white". However, people keep reverting it back to showing it as fact.

People apparently don't seem to realize that the 97% white figure comes from the CIA Factbook, which can be very inaccurate when it comes to reporting percentages of ethnic groups in populations, especially when they are not reported by the country's government. In fact, a previous edition of the CIA Factbook (copied verbatim here: ) said that Argentina was 85% white and 15% mestizo. I have personally met several Argentines who consider themselves Mestizo; one was from Jujuy in the far northwest. In addition, there are large numbers of Mestizos and Indians from Paraguay and Bolivia living in the Buenos Aires area; Argentines say that Buenos Aires is now the largest Paraguayan city in the world.

The United States, meanwhile, is reported in the Factbook as "white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)". It leaves out all mention of the fact that most Hispanics are mestizo, and assumes they're all white. Thus, we have the absurd situation where Guatemalan Maya who live in the U.S. are called "white" by the CIA Factbook. Bottom line: the CIA Factbook is very slipshod when it comes to accuracy, and I do not know how they got the 97% figure or why, and we should use the older 85% figure. BGManofID 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be good to have some other sources.--Mariano (t/c) 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the CIA Factbook either, but as long as we identify the source, it's OK to quote the figure. If we remove the CIA Factbook we'll have a serious content dispute. I'd rather use INDEC figures and other studies, but someone will add the CIA Factbook again.
 * As for "large numbers of Mestizos and Indians from Paraguay and Bolivia living in the Buenos Aires area", I remember I quoted the numbers somewhere; there are less than 500,000 Paraguayans in the whole Capital + Greater Buenos Aires area, and less than 250,000 Bolivians, as of 2003, according to official sources. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we have to definite what is a white person BorisDelMas 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are are wrong I am sorry to say. The Offical census of Argentina DID conclude that Argentina is around 97 precent white. That census you speak of was either an Estimate or not from the government of Argentina. If the CIA world fact book is so wrong why did the cite that Argentina was 85 precent in previous editions of the CIA world fact book? Pablo is right about your large numbers statement which is clearly an Opinion you have. So again I am sorry to say you are wrong I am taking the tag off because we have CLEAR edvience and just lay this issue to rest. There is no reason to Hate the CIA world fact book because its a VERY dependable source that is clearly based on research and not what the US thinks is "white" as you mean to put it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.175.168 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately INDEC cannot be trusted anymore —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Several things:
 * We don't get to define. We must quote the figures and the sources (and the method used, if possible) and those things only. I believe that the CIA data are based on self-assumption of ethnic belonging, as in the US census I've heard (you're presented with several choices of "race" and you choose which "race" you belong to). Given that it's not strange that 97% of Argentinians call themselves "white" — for the general population, "mestizo" and "aboriginal" have been insults since the Spaniards first came.
 * www.turismo.gov.ar doesn't cite the source of the "95% white" claim (note it says 95%, not 97%). The national census does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT ask for ethnic/racial identification.
 * INDEC is indeed trustable. The unsubtle political manipulations of the last weeks should not taint its reputation. The fact has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the opposition, and moreover, inflation figures have nothing to do with the data of the 2001 census.
 * —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

INDEC is VERY DEPENDABLE, Argentino. Pablo is right lets not get carried away. Just because they don't cite the source doesn't mean its not real. They must have taken it from the census which was done in 2001 as you know. This 85 precent figure also doesnt cite its source and I don't see anyone questioning its source. Even though you right that they have been insults its a general fact we know of the immigration to Argentina and its history so its easy to conclude that this figure is correct. Also Pablo if the National census does not ask for Racial/ethnic indenitfication how did this Magical 85 precent figure pop up? [00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]


 * Common people keep looking, you just need to find the right source, it's obvious that Argentina is not 97% white, you just need to visit the country to look it up for yourself. It's impossible that Bolivia that is right above Argentina has almost a full indigenous population and that Argentina has none. It’s ridiculous. The north of Argentina has a lot of indigenous peoples, but of course the government doesn't count them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.218.100 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Your statement is flawed because those natives are so few compared to the total population. So it does make sense if you think in numbers and not how people look in one area. You have to look at the total Argentine population and for that the gran majority are White. Anyone should know this when looking at demographics! What does Bolivia have to do with Argentina? (24.60.175.168 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

What an idiot. What does Bolivia being above Argentina have anything to do with it's demographics? With that logic that means that just because Uruguay is close by Argentina is even whiter? please. Anyone visiting Argentina your right would see the country is Overwhelming of European decent no question about it. You are being too general only a few Isoilated places in Argentina have still Natives they are so few compared to the population of the rest of the country as the census says, only 400,000 comon. You need to get your logic strait. As for your mistrust in the CIA world fact book if you visit the FAQ section it states: ""What is The World Factbook’s source for a specific subject field? The Factbook staff uses many different sources to publish what we judge are the most reliable and consistent data for any particular category. Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources."" so they obviously found this figure in various places as they state in there Policies and Procedures section of there Frequently Asked Questions. (XGustaX 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Most sources claim that Europeans make up 97% of the population, while grouping the remaining 3% are mestizo and indigenous. However, many claim these numbers distort reality. The Human Rights Documentation Center prepared a paper entitled “Racial Discrimination: The Record of Argentina” []. If you read this, you would probably agree that the figures are more likely around 85% white, 12% mestizo, and 3% indigenous. The document makes a critical point- The official figures may overestimate the white population, but they certainly reflect the normative perception that the country is predominantly white. Mariokempes 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Argentina is deff. overwhemlingly white. The article doesn't mention what you state. Since the indigenous population in the census only came up about 1 precent so you seem to overstate it. I would say Argentina is over 90 White. It is no dought that it is overwhelmingly white more then 90 precent most likely.(24.60.175.168 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC))


 * come on Argentinians don't be rude you know that brazil has much more people from european decendents than Argentina has and we only count 60% white in our census.   stop being racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.195.85 (talk • contribs)

I AGREE. IN BRAZIL YOU FIND MANY MORE EUROPEN DECENDENTS THAN ARGENTINA AND THEY DONT CALL THEMSELVES A 97% WHITE NATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.195.85 (talk • contribs)


 * This guy talking to himself really made me laugh. In any case, Brazil having a higher percent of white inhabitants is more than arguable. I also find the 97% too high, but some sources point to that. It would be good though to have some other source to place the number between this and that. --Mariano (t/c) 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did! He is also totally wrong. Brazil having more white people then Argentina! As for the 97 precent figure,its around there more or less. As for citing between this and that, this type of citing is great for certain things Mariano but not for everything. Besides, we have included estimates in the minority section. Thank You.(XGustaX 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

Although Argentina has a larger PERCENTAGE of whites than Brazil, Brazil clearly has a larger NUMBER of whites. Example, apx 25-28 Million Brazilians are of Italian decent, Argentina has a population total of 40 Million. The number of Italians in Brazil is only ONE of the many european ethnic groups that immigrated to Brazil. Argentina has a larger percentage of whites, but Brazil CLEARLY has a larger NUMBER of citizens of European ancestry.

what are you guys talking about Brazil in the Argentine's page??

Most sources report Argentina's population as 97 per cent white (mostly of Spanish and Italian descent) and three percent mestizo (Amerindian' and European), Amerindian, or other nonwhite groups. One of the difficulties in assessing and addressing persistent forms of racial discrimination in Argentina is the lack of adequate information about the population, particularly the indigenous and immigrant communities. The national census scheduled for 2000 was postponed due to lack of funds. Historically, national census data has been collected using the category of national origin rather than race in Argentina, leading to undercounting Afro-Argentines and mestizos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cia figures never lie ;) 97% sounds just about right to me. Irrer 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god!!Everytime that one of this guys from central or nother south america comes out!! they have some big issues....

As for the Argentinian site, we discussed our site for over three years and we use the most official sources. And that's all, besides most not whites in Argentina are the new immigrants. Could you please stop the vandalism?.

The Americans decided used the most realiable sources which are the ones of the census, so with did. Americans decided let alone any individual and polemic study 8as the one that some of you mention but there is a new one that said that genetically the population is 90% european which is pretty much like the official numbers. The same happen with some American studies.

The 90% figure is the one of the official census, govermment and the international numbers. And it sounds ok, for me and I live in Argentina, so please stop with you vandalism. Or I'll start add irrelevant facts in the brazilian, venezuelan (btw, the venezuelan even changes the official dates according to her/his piacere!!! ) and chilean sites, just because i'm boring.

Why don't you worry about your section. WE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Argentines
Argentines is both the Noun and Adjective form in English. Check here for the Dictionary defenition:

"–noun 1. a native or inhabitant of Argentina. 2. Argentina (usually prec. by the): They vacationed in the Argentine.  –adjective 3. of or pertaining to Argentina."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Argentine

Althought you can use Argentinian, it is more correct and proper to use Argentine. The word ends in a -tine like Florentine.(XGustaX 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

I reverted Pablo's edits because in most Encylopedi's they use Argentine. (24.60.175.168 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Argentinean is the North American term, while Argentine is the British term as far as I learned while in the States and in Argentina. COLsass 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Argentinas black population
Why is it not mention in this article. There are 2 million black argentinans. "Hay casi dos millones de afrodescendientes en el país Miriam Gomes, vicepresidenta de la Sociedad Caboverdeana Argentina " He is say there are two million blacks in the country http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/specials/2007/esclavitud/newsid_6455000/6455537.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dualldual (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC).


 * He says there are 2 million afrodescendientes in the country, meaning "of African descent". I don't know why this hasn't shown up in the data, perhaps the people have only a small amount of black ancestry, or otherwise don't consider themselves black.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Cichullain. There is no mention of this in the article becuase genetic tests suggest this was overstated estimate. Genetic tests say that 2 precent of Argentines have at least one African descent most of these had a a small amount of black ancestry, less than 10 percent.

Thank you.

Hope it answers your questions,(XGustaX 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Would you mind presenting the genetic test so that we can all see it? I'd also like to ask how you used a genetic test to prove race? From my understanding there are genetic markers that can be used but they can indicate very little about your race. For example you could go back 10 generations but if your fathers father father 10 generations ago was white and your mothers mother mother was white genetic testing will tell you that your 100% white even if your extremely black because all of your other ancestors were pur africans. Well for us to say why it is not in other data would be original research unless we can find some article explaining why it is not in there. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy of at least a mention even it is only a sentence in the article.


 * I would also be interested in hearing about this genetic test. I'm all for including the info on African descent in Argentina, but it looks like they don't consider themselves a separate ethnic group. If you want to include the info, you should find a source in English (Attribution) if possible; this is the English Wikipedia after all. Also be sure to be clear in your wording; saying 2% of Argentinians have black ancestors is different than saying 2% of Argentina is black. Saying otherwise comes treacherously close to the one-drop theory.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are hardly any Argentines of African Descent, this is a well known fact in Argentina. You are right, see out of that 2 precent most had only a 10 percent contriubtion. See that 5 precent figure was based on a survey. Since, many people mistake claim false descentants like in the US it is not terribly realible since this was not a census. Especially since the last census taken to find the population of black Argentines or some with them it revealed only 2 percent of Argentines had at atleast a black ancestor. This actually makes sense because the genetic tests match up exactally. To say 2 percent of Argentines are black this is not the case what so ever. We did not to put that in simply because too say that would be too close to the one drop theory, you are right Cuchullain. It is well known to Argentines that there were Africans however, Africans are now pretty much gone. The genetic study proves this on how Africans dissapeared.

Thank You.

Hope it answers your question(XGustaX 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Hey xgustax what do you think about your neighbour Brazil? please answer me ASAP. many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.195.85 (talk • contribs)

Wrong information. I don't know who told you that there are 2 million black argentinians. The black people in this country is less than 1% according to the census. The country has around 40 million people, so do the math. Also, the majority of those black people, were not born in argentina, but in Brazil or Uruguay or another country. In fact, I have never ever know any black person or heard of any black person that was born in Argentina. And I have known a lot of people in my life.

Buenos Aires had a huge population of black people in 18 and 19 century (slaves). But 90% of them were sent to the war with Paraguay, and died there. The remaninning of them, decided to emigrate to Brazil or Uruguay. That's why you hardly see any black citizen in the streets of any city of Argentina.

Ale2007 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its wrong information, your absolutely right. Everything you said is true. When you see a black person in Argentina, although it is very rare I might add, as everyone has put above, they are not from Argentina, but foriegn to the country.(SouthJames 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Indigenous population
I've just updated the figures and quoted the official source (an INDEC press release of June 29, 2006). Please take into account that the "Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas" is still in process, therefore the figure could be a little higher. --Cinabrium 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The indigenous population should be prioritized in the Minority section. Irrer 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics
Why does someone insist on reverting the edits to this section without substantiation? What is wrong with the statement that Argentina's white population "may be as high as 97%" depending on the source? In reality we all know it is lower- probably around 90%. Look at the facts... there are 3% indigenous and at least as many mestizo (possibly as high as 10%). It is still mostly "white" and "european". Also, no, Chile is not overwhelmingly "white" as someone keeps insisting- it is overwhelmingly mestizo. And again, what is wrong with that??? Mariokempes 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you are wrong. See Natives only make up 1 percent,from the census, as we have already discussed so you are not correct, therefore that why we have changed it, becuase you are not right. As for Chile I will remove that. Thank You. Hope it answers your question.(XGustaX 23:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC))


 * XGustaX, mind the tone of your answers. You are only seeing the figures of sources you choose to see, ignoring the rest. The number of white people in Argentina is not all that clear, and that situation must be reflected in the article. --Mariano (t/c) 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No I am not Mariano. His source says that Argentina is 3% indigenous and the census says its only 1 precent so the the source is flawed and just plain incorrect, it clearly overstates the population. This a classic case proving that all sources are not created equally. Why use faulty and clearly incorrect information that contridicts the Argentine indigenous Census? That is my point. It already is relflect in the article with in the mintority section. We have discussed this many times with Pablo and everyone who contributes here. So do not tell me about seeing only sources I choose, You have no right. Because I have my clear and reasonable reasons. (XGustaX 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

You should be nicer. However, I do not think he is only looking at the sources he chooses, since it is true what he says the figures seem to be and actually are overstated.


 * XGustaX.... I apologize. I didn't realize you had a monopoly on the encyclopedic facts presented in this article. Why did you you revert my unbiased improvements to the demography section? I didn't change anything other than improve the English- which now again looks like a high school student paper and not an encyclopedia. I also cleared up some misleading statements- which are now back in glorious, matter-of-fact form. What's up??? Mariokempes 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbias putting ""white"" like this is not bias? comon. I am going to ingore your pointless and totally rude comment you just said to me. So whatever, just don't say it was totally unbaised because it wasn't because you sure fooled me.(XGustaX 03:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I was rude... and for that I apologize. As for "white", that is the term your own reference uses. This is not the same as European. White includes arabs, which according to the article make up about 3% of the population. Arabs are not European, so if you want to say European, the total is 94%. This is also debateable since there is the issue of the terminology used in the Argentine census- as Pablo clearly and eloquently stated above. As for the other changes- I was only improving the English and intent. For example, you really mean "most" other Latin American countries, not "many". People go "to" a place, not "in" a place. If you revisit what I did, you will see that I didn't really change anything other than make it more like an encyclopedia and less like a series of casual comments. Some statements need a reference, so I added a tag... I didn't delete the comment. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but Wikipedia is a collective medium, and I didn't appreciate the immediate reverts (to what are truly only improvements on what was already there) without at least some meaningful discussion. Mariokempes 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not say that 3 precent of Argentina is Arab, that sounds way to high. Where did you get this, because it is not in the article. As far as Pablo "making it clear" what he was saying that there was no clear census on the white population of Argentina but on Natives and other non-white groups there have been. So to say that the "issue of Terminaology" was used is not the case. So I am sorry to say you are indeed wrong on that. (24.60.175.168 05:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, he is right the census does make clear of those. I mean thats how we got the Idigenious peoples census threw the Argentine Census. But Yeah Arab Immigration was pretty low in Argentina so they are minimal group. Especially since most Argentines make a clear distinction between being White and Arab, so that is simply not the case. As for the corrections in grammar you are right they should be fixed.(XGustaX 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC))


 * The article clearly says there are 1m levantine arab speakers (under the languages heading) and this is supported by a reference to Ethnologue. That makes 3% (OK, actually 2.6 or so). I am pretty sure these arab speakers are not ethnic Spaniards or Italians. As for what Pablo was saying, I think you need to re-read his statements. Also, don't "brush off" what I said as just grammar. It's also about being clear and not providing misleading information. If this article is to become a serious reference, it needs to be completely unbiased. To conclude, I am pretty sure the last two posts are by the same person... I will no longer contribute from hereon. Mariokempes 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No way there are that many Arabic speakers in Argentina. That is just proabably one person estimate. But I dont believe it. (64.132.0.250 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Please, stop being being rude here we do not allow it. We do not do this hear and if you are accussing me of doing that then you should not contribute here because you clearly show no respect to other users. In addition, using unathourative sources will not get you far hear. I have looked at your other edits and have found simular problems with your "arguments" like about Silician and the Italian influence on it. We highly dought the 1 million Arabic speakers source for many reasons. One being that they say only 1.5 million Argentines speak Italian. That is just silly knowning that 60 precent of Argentines are Italian origen and very very few about 600,000 are Arabic. Arabic immigration was small. According to a National survey done in Argentina to the languages Argentines speak, Arabic was not even on this list. So we highly dought it althought we do mention that some do tend to think like that. So please stop right there. I also known about my own country and its census so it was clear to misread what Pablo said. I know what Pablo says and I have talked to him many times. As Mariano put it, we do not have a 100 precent accurate figure on the white population of Argentina, but other groups we do for most part. So please do not bother contriuting if you are going to accuse me of wrong doing and treat people rudly.(XGustaX 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Dear XGustaX, 64.132.0.250, and 24.60.175.168: I really don't know where you are coming from... First, I was no longer rude (although you really test me!). Second, Ethnologue is hardly an unauthoritative source. Third, you obviously have a personal agenda (and it's not well hidden, I might add). I'm going to kick myself for saying this, but... let's assume the number of ethnic arabs in Argentina is "only" 600,000 (as you suggest; the source still maintains over 1m), that is still a huge amount and it still represents 2% of the "white" population. Anyways, I already told you I will no longer contribute to the article, and from now on I will stay away from the Talk page as well. This is really not worth the effort. Mariokempes 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Learn to do Math Buddy. That is 1.5 that is not a huge amount! You seem to be the one with the agenda here always imposing your views on others most people would agree with me when I say the Arab community is very small indeed. So stop being rude to me and other users or else. If it is not worth the effort then leave. No one wishes to deal with people like you. If that is the case then why have the underestaimated the Italian language speakers in Argentina compared to surevy which puts the Italian speaking population to 6.9 precent! While Ethnologue says its only 1,500,000. Please.(XGustaX 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC))


 * OK, I can't help myself. If Wikipedia is going to become everything that it should, we cannot let ourselves be stifled by indifference... Los Medios y Mercados de Latinoamérica published the following for Argentina in 1998: White 89%, Black 0%, Indigenous 1%, Mulatto 1%,  Mestizo 6%, Asian 0%, Don't Know 4% (the 0%, by the way, is not absolute). see [] This doesn't even consider what is "white" for, as I said above, white does not mean European! The point I wish to make is there are many different viewpoints relating to the ethnic composition of Argentina, and this needs to be reflected in the article. I welcome meaningful insight and debate before I make any changes to the article! Mariokempes 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario it is 95 precent cut the crap! This is the from the offical Argentine census Ok your source is unoffical and as it says "If we cannot let people classify themselves, then the alternative is to let others do it. The Los Medios y Mercados de Latinoamérica study is a pan-Latin American survey in which interviewers are sent to interview a representative sample of people in their homes.  As part of the interviewing process, the interviewer is required to classify the respondents into one (and only one) of seven racial categories: white, black, indigenous, mulatto, mestizo, asian and "Don't know"."

What does this reveal? That is this completely unathourative compared to offical census. I am come on! Did you even read this this mario? It was a Survey done by people from these countries. So you've got to be kidding me! You want me to speak to you like this I will because you are just pushing it! Stop pressing this further most people disagree with you. You have to assume good faith because right now and from what I can see from your edits you are not! Stop being a stubborn bastard about it and if you don't like the facts don't come here anymore.(XGustaX 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Why do you keep doing this. Just give it a break and stop being so rude to other users. (71.174.112.24 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Why are you so rude to other users on here. You come here citing totally unathouratative sources compared to what we have. You need to stop pushing your POV down our throats Just end it as they say, enough is enough. The reason Wikipedia is NOT a reiable source and i believe it will never be is because people like you cite these kind of sources. Rather then citing these kind of unathouratative sources, why not cite offical government sources and other encylopedic sources for example Encarta, which is what we have done.(24.60.175.168 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC))


 * XGustaX... Look, I know we started off on the wrong foot and I don't know why you are being so rigid (and bitter). All I am saying is that there are varying opinions by authoritative entities on this point. OK, you cite the census, but as pointed out by others on these pages, it too has some problems. What is wrong with saying "Argentina's white population may be as high as 97% depending on the source"? This is more accurate. This does not imply you are wrong, only that there is some room for reputable opinion. I don't understand why this ruffles you feathers!! Even Europe is no longer 97% European. I'd like to hear from others on this (XGusta- there is another aspect to this discussion on your Talk page). Mariokempes 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. but it is because if you look 95 precent are European and another 5 precent are Mestizo or Other. My point is that is NOT by any means an authritative source. You dont need to have an opinion to find out if this is athouratative or not. If you read above other users agree with me. I mean you cant count a survey dont by a third party no were near the offical census. The Census is not flawed, it is recent from 2006 and update your source before was from 1999! So just put this rest and just dont what most people want on here and cut it.(XGustaX 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, its true that your source is not athouratative and there no opinion evolved whether it is or not. It just that crystal clear. I mean com'on all you have to do is read the article. The offical Argentine source is just that Offical and from the government and up to date. This would mean there is little error. You should be a lot kinder to people on here because if you aren't it will come back to haunt you later. (64.132.0.250 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

I hardly dought the reliablity of your source, my friend. A Media Marketing company is not the highly WP:RS we look for here. (DoubleNine 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Ethnicity is a very complicated issue, and I happen to disagree with the result of this discussion. For starters, demographic statistics are not perfect, and are based on people's responses. The census in Argentina, in terms of ethnicity, was based simply on self-ascription: that is, they asked the individuals whether they consider themselves Mestizo, Amerindian or of European ancestry. Needless to say, very few individuals self-ascribe as Mestizo and Amerindian. Genetic studies and their finding reports, which suggest a 56% of the population with some Amerindian ancestry, are blatantly ignored in this article, even though they are included in es:Argentina and es:Composición étnica de Argentina, all properly referenced, which suggests the information presented here in the English Wikipedia is bordering on WP:POV. If this is a contentious issue that is discussed ad nauseum, then I propose that we Request for Arbitration so that all arguments, fully referenced, are presented to stand scrutiny by external editors to suggest and unbiased conclusion in this particular matter. -- the D únadan 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, This hasn't been an issue for a while. But thanks for your help. XGustaX 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an issue, because I disagree with the solution that has been imposed so far. -- the D únadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dúnadan. This article has been POV for far too long. Mariokempes 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then I am Requesting for Arbitration. I will let you know about the process, and how every concerned editor can participate. -- the D únadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We have alreadeady decided add genetic researchs (thi is no the only one and there are other THAT CONTRADICT THIS). An besides we discuss how this research was not really accurated because it was made in some provinces with cetain pattern and not in other and besides some markers sometimes common for Southern Europeans were considered native americans.

(CHECH OUT THE ARCHIVES PLEASE). the demographics are not about genetic pressicion but about geneotypes, and besides research contrdisct themselves!.

That's why we included them in the demographic's article.

Could you check out the talk page before change things. Official sources are the govermment and the cia not the ones you posted, that's why they mention 95-97%. 190.16.20.42 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Laura_Lynch190.16.20.42 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Economic Update
Hi everybody, the IMF recently changed the GDP per capita PPP for Argentina in their April 2007 report. The IMF has adjusted the figure to $15,937 at PPP and the GDP at PPP has been changed $621,070. They report the economy grew 8.5% during 2006. I suggest that the figures on this page be updated.

Ok, Thanks I will update the page right now. I will try to find source, thanks again for your contributions.(XGustaX 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

I looked up the figures and I found that the GDP PPP was higher now it was much higher in fact to $17,062 also the GDP was $671.508. I have changed it to read these figures now. Thanks again. (XGustaX 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Religion
Around 93% declare themselves Roman Catholic according to different surveys, though most are not practicing; the Church estimates an affiliation of 70%.[43][44] What do other sources estimate?

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.

Evangelical churches have gained a foothold in Argentina since the 1980s, and their followers now number more than 3.5 million, about 10% of the total population.

Traditional Protestant communities are present in most communities.

These should be cited.

The Anglican Church of Argentina http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/diocese.cfm?Idind=534

The Presbyterian Church of Argentina, The Methodist Church of Argentina, etc..

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) number over 330,300, the seventh-largest concentration in the world[45]

The country also hosts the largest Jewish population in all of Latin America, about 2 percent of the population.[46]

Islam in Argentina constitutes approximately 1.5% of the population, or an estimated 500,000-600,000 (93% Sunni).[47] Argentina is also home to one of the largest mosques in Latin America, serving Argentina's Muslim community.

Approximately 7% of Argentines can be considered non-religious or secular.


 * Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now number over 350,000 per this lds.org website newsroom page. The page is protected so I cannot update the information.  Will somebody please update?  Thanks, Alanraywiki 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims etc.
Is it really fair on our Argentine friends to allude to the matter of their claim on the Falkland Islands in the very first part of the article? With respect, to mention Argentina's Antarctic claims in this first part seems silly and patronising - it is surely as small a matter to them as it is to anyone else. It should be way down in the article. Imagine if the United Kingdom article started off by laying out her Antarctic claims? I'd like to change it... Regards to all 195.137.96.79 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

in my opinion, and i am argentine, the theme about the malvinas should have an special section, not necessary at the beggining but yes to be relevant.

Protection
This page has been protected because of the continuous addition and removal of the link to White Latin American. Protection does not imply endorsement of the current version. The parties involved should discuss the matter in this talk page. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of the edit war of adding and removing the link to White Latin American. I rewrote the introduction to the Demographic section to include all different points of view and research results fully verifiable with proper sources. I don't oppose the recent copy/edit by which the link to White Latin American was added. The link seems appropriate. The neutrality of the content (instead of endorsing a single version and ignoring/disregarding other important sources/researches) was my main concern. -- the D únadan 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of Jews in Argentina
The oft-quoted 500,000 figure was about 2% of the 25,000,000 population figure in the early 1970s. But that figure was controversial in itself. Now, the current estimate for Jewish population in Argentina is 185 to 250 thousand: (see also Jewish population), which makes about half a percent of the total population.

The decline in Jewish population is due to three factors: emigration (to Israel, the USA, and other countries), low natality rate, and leaving the community due to marriage outside of the faith or other reasons. elpincha 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Bakersville 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics
Mariano could you please revert the vandalism in the demographic page I tried but i couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean your vandalism? It has been reverted. -- the D únadan 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pablo I write you again because i know you're on vacation but we have another guy making vandalism with the article.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon user above has made unreferenced claims here and elsewhere of actions of other well-intentioned users:
 * He has claimed that he is reverting vandalism: he is actually reverting a version fully backed up with sources and properly referenced that does not hide information but properly cites different sources and researches by renown universities in Argentina. His repeated deletions and reversions (which far outnumber what is allowed by WP:3RR) are detrimental to the project.
 * He claims that there was no discussion regarding the current version. I direct him/her to this section in which at least two users expressed their disagreement with the biased and POV version that we have replaced.
 * Like I said before, I strongly believe solid references and not opinions should be included in the article. Moreover, by WP:NPOV if there are two different contradicting valid sources then both should be included. Choosing one and claiming that one Academic research is "more valid" than another one is POV, of course, especially when the other version is fully backed up by solid sources. If this is a contentious issue, then I propose that we request for Mediation and/or Arbitration.
 * -- the D únadan 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the demographic's section
I want to know what's th position of the people who has been discussed the different sections in this article for years like Pablo, Mariano, etc...

do this user discussed anything in the talk page before changed the demographic's section???

in case you decided to keep this. I would add the other researches and the critcs to the genetic research he/she mention and we discussed in this talk page for months and months.

And this section is gonnabe a perfect disaster again!! (just like it was the demographic's section of the United States too. But finally they decided not to included in demographics, genetic researches as the famous who said that on average all peopel selfdescribing as white american was 4,5% amerindian and 1% african american.  They deleted the mention that the African American are 20% european according to genetic research.

The same with the case of Brazil.

so WE HAVE DECIDED TO DO WHAT EVERYBODY IN OTHER COUNTRIES that are melting pots of the time of uruguay, Unites States, Argentinam Canada did. Based the demographic's in the census self description, and other official numbers.

EVEN the Mexican section (a country with a less multicultural life and most homogeneous (really mixed population) based their numbers in the official numbers.

Genetic has not point if a person is 90% and has a native american ancestors (and hence marker) is not European?? For example Anjelina jolie, kim Basinger, Jessica Biel, Bill clinton, Kevin Costner and MANY OTHERS who have a great grandparent native american (and hence according to that research would have been considered the 50% of the population with a native american ancestry, (and 10% of the population here and there is included as "inhabitants" because the research was made to "inhabitants" of any race, at an even larger extend is immigrants from mixed raced countries like bolivia, Peru that came to Argentina and form Mexico and Panama, Colombia that emigrated to the United States). But really does it really matter if Bill Clinton had a great grandfather native american in the way that he's phenotipycally for the entire world!!, and even genetic he's just enterely european for almost everything except for this tiny part.  There is african admixture in europe anyway (check out the article) of about 1% in places like Norway!!. Do you think it should be mentioned it in the demographics?

That's why we (and the Americans, and the Brazilians and the Canadians) decided included (like evryone else) the official numbers, that reflect the truely important that is the phenotype and predominantly markers in their genotype.

It's funny I have seen in these years from discussion about the possible native american ancestries of many white Americans, or the possible black ancestries of some white brazilians (speacially in Notehr Brazil). My best os fo now the time this guy brought the researcjh about the fact that French Canadians were part meti (canadian mestizos) or about 5% native american on average. So he said the that we should put that the people self described as "french canadians" in the cesus should we labeled as (5% amerinidian-95% french). I was like WTF??

anyway, in the end all this is quite irrelevant, and as I said before the markers that were labeled as native american for that 50% of the population (10% immigrants anyways, and about 5-15% self described already as non europeans (asian, mixed etc), are also found in a minority but important part (if we have in mind that the main Argentinian ethnic group is Italian) of southern Europeans and in Asians (than in Argentina are over a hundred thousand of the population and is incrasing really fast both Chinese and Korean)

Anyway, back to the point what are we going to do with this section?? so I decided how to add the text of the other research. In case we decided mix census and phenotype and culture with small parts of a percentage of the population....

Because ANY demographic's section mention it. And we just add the dates in the articles about genetic researches.

And on the other hand becuase (and for the 100th time check out the archives) other articles contradict the research you mention and have different dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop pushing your POV down our throats Just end it as they say, enough is enough. The reason Wikipedia is NOT a reiable source and i believe it will never be is because people like you cite these kind of sources. Rather then citing these kind of unathouratative sources, why not cite offical government sources and other encylopedic sources for example Encarta, which is what we have done.

genetic research are mentinon in the proper ARTICLE BUT ANY COUNTRY IN THE AMERICAS from Canada, to Uruguay has accepted genetic research of a distant native american ancestry as a reference for a demographic's section in an encyclopedic way... It's just insane... It's mentioned in the article about genetic researches (even wiht the hundred of critics to that research) as are mentioned the ones in the United States, and other coutnries form the Americas. If Argentina should mention genetic sreasearch in the demographic's section (totally out of place anyway) they should be mentioned in every coutnry from the Americas (at leats) or in all the countries in the demographic's section.... Don't you think?

that's why I'm deleting that, because we already discussed here. And you're just mixing apples with oranges as I explained to you in the previous post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.20.42 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 July 2007


 * Firstly it is difficult to know who is meant by "you" as no user name is mentioned. Secondly, you appear to be using two accounts as you have just used the IP user 190.16.20.42 on this talk page where you state you are going to delete something. Then you have clearly logged in as Snowhite1985 to edit the article presumably because the article is semi-protected and IP users cannot edit at present. And lastly please will you sign your comments. All it takes is adding four tildes at the end ( four of these ~). If you don't sign your comments other users do not know who is leaving the message. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is pushing any POV except the anon user himself, and we have remained calm, but the anon user himself. Please note that the current version is citing ALL sources, including the sources he supports: the official government sources (census self-ascription), encyclopedic and international sources (CIA, Britannica), and academic sources (genetic research). As such, the section is by far, WP:NPOV (all verifiable sources are included), ALL different approaches are being presented, and ALL are been given their due weight. We are not hiding any source (like he wishes to do), and all sources are authoritative. We are not saying one source right and the other wrong (like he does) we are simply stating what they say and what they are referring to. If the articles in other countries [do not] wish to include genetic research, that is up to the editors there to decide. In this particular case, and as the editors in es:Argentina and es:Demografía de Argentina have set the example, including ALL relevant sources not only complies with everything Wikipedia stands for and all its consensual norms, but it also enhances the quality of the article by providing factual information from ALL relevant sources thus including ALL different POVs: both the social as well as the biological approach to ethnography.
 * -- the D únadan 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographic's section "Dunadan and Tangarines"
Look I've already said here that Dunadan is editing a section that we have been discussed and we arrived to an agreement, with all all the people who have been working in this article for about two years.

We have a long discussion and we (as Americans did, just check out their talk section in "archives") decided not to mentioned that research (and others) in this section, because obviously because they contradicted each other because the markers used to comprove a native american ancestor are present in a minority of Southern Europeans, (and Argentinian main ethnic groups -Italian and Spaniards- are southern Europeans (We are talking about millions and a minority such as in S. Europe present those markers). Besides it can we find even in major percentage of Asians.  And in Argentina exist an important Asian community of 100,000 Asian Argentines which is incresing very fast (check out the "Asian Argentines" section).

We mention that article in the extense demographic's section. But we had decided not to included here almost a year ago, and the demographic's section didn't have any problem since them, excepted for the number of legalized illegal immigrants that reach 1 million a time ago with the new programme.

If we mention one research we have to mention two others that contradict this one. And was it worth it for an encyclopedian article about a country not demographics? (that's why we mentioned it there and in the article about genetics, where the other countries like Ths Unites States and Brazil decided to post about genetic studies.

I've discussed everything before or (a few times) after I posted in this section, the one who never posted here was (or at least I never saw it was Dunadan to discuss before change a section that has been discussed here.

How would you feel after discussed and cited your sources with other users in the same project and I visited let's say the US demographic's section where they decided to add just the numbers of the self describing census and I cited the 30 different genetic researches they discussed there.

You say I commet vandalim when all what I'm doing is reverting your modification to the precious text (the one that has been discussed here). Because even if you have sources you can just posted something without consult in the talk page as Tangarines said to me, and I replied him saying I was just reverting the text that was posted for you without disscuss in the "talk page".

If you want we can discussed about add both researches. But it would have nonsense. And besides why would we have to do it again if we have already discussed it and it was not added in the other demographic's section??.

You're even deleting deleting the disscussions.

I have been here for years Tangarines I'm sorry I never sign up my messages. But for example I was the one who wrote the last two comments here. I have a dinamic IP sorry.

Tangerines I didn't mean to post with two different users, I just forgot to login in before, I hoped you coukd undestad it.

Anyway, here you have all the discussion we have A YEAR AGO! about the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentina/Archive_4

Dunadan, you have not disscussed before post.

We? spend months before arrive to a at least partially finish section as you can read in the link abode.

I even let your part anyway righ before I just modificated the part which said "self-describing ethnic in the census" (or something similar), because a census is obviously about self-description. It was redundant.

again read the history, we had decided included both researches and then don't it since it didn't make any sense (except in a section about genetics or at least in the extensive demographic article)

tangarines pleas etell me I finally sign ok this time.

Greetings Ornella Lynch.

Snowhite1985 07:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 engages in vandalism. Here we go again:
 * I discussed the issue before editing. If you cannot read the above sections, then please refer to the posted link I provided in my previous intervention.
 * It doesn't matter whether one thing was agreed a year ago or 5 years ago: consensus are not written in stone. Please read WP:consensus. A new consensus can be reached.
 * The nature of my edits are FULLY backed up by WP:NPOV (I am including ALL versions, the ones you support, and the ones I support, plus the ones other users support; you are flagrantly hiding one research claiming it is invalid based on ¡¡your own opinion¡¡), by WP:Verifiability (threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth or what you perceive to be true), and by WP:CITE (my version properly cited solid sources that included the census bureau of Argentina, two reputable tertiary sources: CIA and Britannica, as well as a reputable primary source: a genetic research).
 * Pablo, you might want to remain outside the debate, and I commend you for your impartiality. However, you cannot ignore that the edits of Snowhite are detrimental to the project: he is stubbornly holding on to a version that violates, at least three consensual policies of wikipedia (NPOV, Verifiability and Cite), not to mention his violations of WP:3RR (after reverting 11 times!) and possibly WP:SOCK.
 * -- the D únadan 01:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pablo-flores: If Snowhite does not wish to continue debating then I must say that if the page is unprotected I will revert back to the original version based on two grounds:
 * It fully complies with WP:Verifiability and most importantly WP:NPOV: it is showing both Snowhite's sources as well as other sources, and it covers the ethnographic aspect from from a multi-perspective: social (self-adscription), political (census), academic (encyclopedias [Britannica] and international organizations [CIA]) and biological (genetic researches). While he has challenged some sources, he is doing so on the basis of demagogy and verbosity since he has not provided any equally valid source or link to a verifiable source. If he does, however, and to comply with NPOV, all sources, including his, must be stated.
 * It has received the support of at least 4 other users: ExRat, Latka, Tangerines and Carl.bunderson all of which reverted Snowhite's version and classified it as WP:vandalism, . In other words, this is not an edit war per se, but continued and reiterated reversions to a POV biased version from a user who also violated WP:3RR.
 * -- the D únadan 18:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Full protection
I've protected the page. For what it's worth, I haven't even looked at the current version. To avoid a conflict of interests, I won't participate in the discussion except as a last-resort moderator. I'm extremely fed up with this topic being the source of edit wars when it has been previously discussed ad nauseam.

Anonymous editors cannot be forbidden to participate in any discussion, but the common tendency among many users (including me) is discounting their opinions if it looks like they just logged in and posted a few lines without reading the whole discussion, or if they seem to be someone's sockpuppets.

Everybody, please sign and date your posts, reply in order and using an additional level of indent, and justify your ideas using the appropriate Wikipedia policies. I don't care if you have never done that before — get used to it. It's basic Wiki etiquette and you can't coordinate a discussion without that.

Don't attack the other editors. Don't deride other editors' opinions. If you disagree, be respectful. I will not hesitate to enforce the policies of civility and against personal attacks.

The protection will be kept until a consensus version has been reached. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any idea on how long this page is going to be protected? There are other aspects of this relatively long article that could use some editing. Thanks. Qqqqqq 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference Notes
I know the page is protected, but can someone go in and fix the reference notes? The last few dozen notes are bunched up under note 39, making it very difficult to determine the sources. Alanraywiki 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Independencia.net
I've had to remove two links to the website of the Puerto Rican Independence Party (www.independencia.net), used as the source of claims that the government of Argentina had passed resolutions demanding the self-determination of Puerto Rico. The domain independencia.net is banned as spam by the Wikipedia filters. I'm not sure why this is, but I did check other places. There's no clear indication that Argentina has supported the "independence" (as it was written) of Puerto Rico. There was a draft resolution presented to the Chamber of Deputies, but I couldn't find confirmation that the draft was actually approved and passed, least of all "unanimously" as the text claimed. Major Argentine media sources of both the left and the right haven't mentioned it either. The claim has been removed completely; if you find suitable independently-produced evidence, please excuse this and restore it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Premier
I just noticed that Alberto Fernández is listed as Premier. As a matter of fact, the position he holds is "Jefe de Gabinete de Ministros" or Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers. Nachocorreas 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Buenos Aires metropolitan area
I have substituted the metropolitan area populatioon in 2001 per the Argentine census bureau. The previous entry indicated that the metropolitan area included the city of BA and the state of BA, for a total metro pop of about 19m. This is absurd. A metropolitan area is a labor market area. That means that there is significant commuting to work between locations within the area. The state of BA covers 300,000 square km... more than the state of Arizona. This is far too large to be a metropolitan area. INDEC, the Argentine census bureau placed the 2001 population at around 11m. It includes the city of BA and 24 municipalities in the state of BA. I am sorry that I did not have 2005 data to make it correspond to the rest of the table (which I did not review), however, the BA data was so misleading as to make inconsistent years a small problem relative to what was there before...
 * Demographia (Wendell Cox) 2007.09.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demographia (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * well bro, the metro area, considering buenos aires and their neighbouring partidos, it's in reallity really close to 19-18 million... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Demographics again
Argentines keep trying to portrait Argentina as a FULLY european country with no trace of Mestizos and Indigenous peoples whatsoever, now what is going with these FLAGS about the heritage of Argetina??: The heritage of Argentina comes from two primary European sources:
 * 🇪🇸 Spaniards
 * 🇮🇹 Italians

Other Europeans that have contributed significantly include:
 * 🇵🇹 Portuguese
 * 🇩🇪 Germans
 * 🇫🇷 French
 * 🇵🇱 Poles
 * Other Slavic descendants
 * Other Germanic descendants
 * Ashkenazi Jews from Western and Eastern Europe

Studies have shown that more than half of Argentines have some Amerindian background, so why is it that they keep trying to hide it? we all know that they had a lot of Spanish and Italian inmigrantes but why would you have to highlight it? so people won't even notice all the information about Mestizos? User:Supaman89
 * I am among the first to point out that the Amerindian contributions to Argentine demographics are often downplayed. However, it should also be noted that the "more than half" includes mostly traces and, in general, Argentine culture reflects a European heritage and not the Mestizo aspect as in other Latin American countries. Most of Argentina IS overwhelmingly European and its society reflects this. To this regard the article, as it sits right now, is much more balanced than it has been. I have no objection to the flags (eye candy, I guess), as long as the Amerindian aspect remains front and centre. Mariokempes 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe the content is well balanced now. I personally do not like the flags, but I have no objection to them, as long as the content is informative, neutral, accurate and well referenced. -- the D únadan 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we re-write that part like this:
 * Europeans: (Mostly Spaniards and Italians, but also from other parts of Europe)
 * Mestizos: (A mix of European and Amerindian, half of the population has some Amerindian descent)
 * Amerindians: Native people of Argentina, which has almost disappeared because of mixture with Europeans.

No other country (Not even the USA), has flags to highlight the origin of their immigrants, it clearly overshadows the part that talks about mestizos. User:Supaman89
 * The content is by far better the way it is right now with percentages, genetic studies, census etc. The rest is only "eye candy" like Mariokempes said. -- the D únadan 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well like you guys said, if you don't mind, would any of you be opposed to getting rid of the flags and putting Eu/Mz/Am list? just like in any other article? --User:Supaman89
 * I think your proposal is too generic and skews the emphasis away from the fact that Argentina is overwhelmingly European. I prefer it as is, with or without the flags. Mariokempes 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mariokempes, your proposal is too generic, not even a reference is provided. The first paragraph, the way it is right now -and which has achieved a somewhat rough consensus- portrays all POVs (census, international publications and genetic studies) and I believe it is giving due weight to all. Most importantly, it is verifiable. The second paragraph may need to be reviewed and can be improved. -- the D únadan 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly recomend you reading this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert It will maybe help you understund beter part of argentinian demographics. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_in_Argentina may algso help you.

Argentinians outside the country
Hello I am an argentinian living in mexico since 1993 and I wanted to know if the arg. government has the exact figures of argentinian citizens living in each country outside Argentina. I am very interested in creating a separated article about this thank you if anybody wants to help it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QneB (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Help request for district naming scheme
For those interested in the naming scheme of articles about departements and districts, please see a question/problem (involving at least the homonymous districts of "Mundo Nuevo" in Junín Department, Mendoza and Rivadavia Department, Mendoza, possibly more) opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina. Thanks. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS PAGE (THE MAIN PAGE ON ARGENTINA) HAS BEEN VANDALIZED. Landrumkelly 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

new president
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7066776.stm [October 2007]

Genetic study
I've reverted several times regarding his unjustified deletion of the results of a genetic study showing Amerindian descent in 56% of Argentinians. I won't do it anymore. I'm waiting for the user to present his reasons here, and I expect a discussion. This is a discussion of form (removal of sourced material), not of content (I don't care what the study says). I'm withdrawing from it so my role as administrator won't conflict, as Paullen claims I'm threatening him. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:16, 30 October 2007 (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 reversionswithout 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. -- the D únadan 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I and others have in the past explained why this article isn't a good reference but it seems many don't get it. Articles about non peer reviewed studies do not fit Wikipedia criteria for reliable references because the study in the article hasn't been published in a reputable Scientific publication like Science or Nature and peer reviewed by experts in the field.


 * Therefore, the study is scientifically worthless. This isn't a very important issue in a tabloid newspaper because they have no reason to verify scientific studies. Clarín is the most popular paper in Argentina and a rather entertaining read but it's not a scientific publication.


 * The only scientific studies that should be used are peer reviewed studies. If the published article was of a study that was peer reviewed and found to be worthy of inclusion in a reputable scientific paper then it's worthy of inclusion in this page. This has nothing to with the content of the study but simply about verifiabilty and ensuring a neutral point of view. Please also read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.


 * -Coldheartedman (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you need to provide a source that proves that the study wasn't peer reviewed, otherwise it is hearsay. Secondly, even if so, it is you opinion that it is scientifically worthless, not the opinion of scientists, unless, of course, you provide a reliable source that proves your point. Thirdly, Clarin did not conduct the study, it was a university (i.e. the Academia, i.e. the scientists). Clarin reported it in as much as the New York Times reports scientific discoveries in their Science section. Discrediting a scientific study by the fact that it was reported by a news agency is ludicrous. You've said it yourself, and perhaps you should read the sources you are citing: 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.-- the D únadan 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed here and other pages that the inclusion of scientific data about population genetics is not only confusing especially to people who have little or no understanding of the concepts involved but promotes misinterpretation and confusion. Ethnicity is more complex than simple DNA haplogroup markings. A scientific study that isn't peer reviewed belongs in a dust bin. -Coldheartedman (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it is your opinion against that of scientists. If you wish to trash the scientific study to a dust bin, you cannot do it yourself, at least not in Wikipedia. You must provide reliable sources to prove your claim against a reliable source. -- the D únadan 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Could someone clean up the references a bit? Use citation templates like Template:cite book, Template:cite web, Template:cite encyclopedia, etc. Thanks. → ɧʒЖ χ (ГДĽК • КОИГЯІВ)  16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)