Talk:Argentina

Old comments for Argentina are archived: Archive 1 (up to 13 July 2005) Archive 2 (up to February 2006) Archive 3 (up to May 2006) Archive 4 (up to July 2006) Archive 5 (up to October 2006)

Demographics

I edited the section with the agrrement of all these regular users. Please Dunadan, discuss before edited without consensus:

From the discussion in the Archive 4

I have found an article (and other like it) that prove it is pretty much impossible to prove Native American heritage. http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html

(24.60.161.63 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Please, try to be a little bit more constructive with your comments. The article you provide certanly questions the genetic test to identify Native Americans, and is very interesting. By no means should we ignore such analisys, but perhaps we could keep references to both studies: the genetic research, and its critic. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) The article says that trying to determine NA heritage with mtDNA testing 1) yields many false negatives; 2) yields some false positives. It doesn't say that it's impossible to do it. In fact, when applied to large populations, it probably underestimates the number of people with NA heritage, especially since many of the false positives can be readily discarded by asking the person about its heritage (if they say they have a Samoan or Japanese female ancestor, for example). I think the observation is valuable, but it belongs in the article about genetic testing, not here. In any case one must assume that the scientists who conducted the tests know about these things and didn't just release a raw number without taking them into account. I might also point out that the criticism in question is found in the website of an organization called Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, and is written specifically to highlight the problems of native affiliation in the U.S., where people can benefit from affirmative action policies if they can prove they're part of a minority group. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I never said it was impossible, just nearly impossible, sorry about that. Anyways, they have found that many Southern Europeans have these "Markers" and this matchs exactally to Argentina, since many are from Spain and Italy (Southern European countries). So therefore if a vast number of people where surveyed they could yield the results found in the testing. These "markers" would most likely show up in many Argentines since many are of Southern European decent. The "Clarin" article states very clearly what "markers" they used. All this matches the article I posted. The article clearly says many scientist simply just don't enough about these markers and only a few do. The Clarin article does not state that they know about how many people throughout the world share these same "halogroups" or "Markers" and therefore there is no proof that they knew about this. Also The article states for Native Americans testing and they compare to many different kinds of people in the world, so in context you can assume its not just the Native Americans in the US. So I hardly dought that also. Since there were also Native Americans that lived on the boarders of what is now the Canada and Mexico. (24.60.161.63 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm on favour of keeping the genetic test, and adding at its end a comment such as though some scientist disbelieve of such genetic markers test with the corresponding reference: let the reader draw his/her conclusions. Mariano(t/c) 08:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not why? because it hasnt been proven yet 100 why make an article that isnt 100 precent and that has many flaws? I agree that people have a right to make up there mind about opionion subjects the Demographics of Argentina are not this case however. The research reported by Clarin, althought it was professional it's was flawed. No point on adding flawed information or disproven imformation.(24.60.161.63 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Could you tell us where you're getting all these data from? You mentioned only one article, and that's what I criticized. It doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The genetic study must mean something, or else no respected scientist would use it... Also, nothing is 100% certain, but neither is it true that people "have a right to make up their opinion" in every case. We should only present reputable opinions based on good science. Neither you nor I have the credentials to disqualify a scientific study based on our opinions. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Pablo, you have not read the article very carefully it seems, I QUOTE now: "Some of the haplotypes attributed to Native Americans are also found in people from other parts of the world.Å A, B, C, and D are found in North Asia, and X is found in southern Europe and Turkey. In fact, the principal marker of haplotype B is called the "9 base pair deletion," and is found in some Japanese and almost all Samoans. Could they then be classified as genetically Native American?Å These tests cannot even establish with certainty that, for example, someoneªs motherªs motherªs mother was Native American‚they can at best establish a certain probability that this was the case." This makes it very clear. This is also a genetic study so this also must mean something, and yes your genetic study does mean something, but it does not mean that 56 precent of Argentines have Native American hertiage. It most likely means that 56 precent carry this "marker". So it does mean something I am not trying to say it doesn't mean anything. However, it is incorrect. That is all I am saying. Not to put down your Clarin article and make it seem useless but I dont think it belongs in the Argentine Demographics section. I presented this article to show you that it has been proven that Genetic testing for Native Americans is Faultly at best. Also, you say it does not support Native Americans from South America... Really then how come also do testing on Native Americans from South America? They state on there website they are for all Native Americans and have collected there genetical studies also from South American natives. Your right we don't we can only look at the facts, but these are both genetical studys and one clearly gives more detail about why the other is faulty. (24.60.161.63 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Wow! This study is very interesting! This clearly disproves the Clarin.com article, that the way sciencists find Native American Ancestry is still flawed. I would have never known. I agree however, the Genetic study on Clarin.com should not be mentioned as this seems to be a newer study. I can see why such a high precentage of Argentines had the "Marker" as it occurs in Southern Europe,Turkey and Northern Asia. I don't think we should include old imformation on this article. The Demographics of Argentina should be factual not based on opinion of the reader as most sources will tell you.(209.150.51.78 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

I repeat, the paper doesn't say that many Southern Europeans have the same genetic markers as Native Americans. The Clarín article is not "disproved"; the genetic study gives results that must be interpreted. The cited paper is not a newer study, it's just criticism of the method employed to identify Amerindian heritage. In light of the above, I've changed the relevant information in Demographics of Argentina and here. I agree that so much detail could be skipped in this article, though certainly not in the specific Demographics article, so I wouldn't have a problem with removing the mention of the genetic study from Argentina if there's a consensus about it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Okay your right it doesnt say "many" but it does say Southern Europeans do. So just on the merit it must be atleast present to some common degree if they were able to find it in Southern European populations. Which would yield such closely results as 56 precent and not lets say 75 precent or so. Okay I agree about removing the genetic study because it is clearly too unclear if its 100 precent correct or not.

(24.60.161.63 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Very fanicasting Article. It clearly shows there are many flaws in how Scienists prove Ameridian Ancestry. After reviewing the article, I must say to leave out the previous genetical study found at Clarin.com. Thank you. (69.16.84.36 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

As I said before, I also agree with removing the other Genetic Study. There is simply too much against it.(209.150.51.78 02:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. I also think anyone should help from it being put back up again, from those like Al-Andalus, who even Pablo-Flores has had problems with.(DJBenny 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Ehm, I agree with removing the paragraph about the genetic tests, but I'd like to hear from other, long established editors as well. DJBenny, please wait before changing so many tiny bits of the article. I do not agree with the simplistic "97% white"; that's a raw number from the CIA Factbook and really says nothing to the reader. See all the previous (long!) discussion in Talk:Demographics of Argentina. I really really think we should avoid all references to race unless we know what the method is to qualify it (e. g. "97% of Argentinians call themselves 'white'" or "according to CIA agents Mulder and Scully,¹ 97% of Argentinians are phenotypically white"). Then there's the number/percentage of Jews -- what's with that? Please, anybody, bring forth good sources and give your opinion, and then we can change the article. Remember this is a Good Article, so in principle it shouldn't need any of us making major changes. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ¹ Yeah, I know they're FBI, not CIA. I've been thinking in Japanese for the last two hours, so bear with me. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about this I mean I understand it gives it says nothing to reader, but however all the other Nation pages are like this. Okay how about something like "97 precent of Argentines are of European decent or so" . I can Understand your position though. It did anger me however, that Germans weren't even considered on the top 3. We all know as Argentines,Pablo-Flores, that Germans in Argentina are not all uncommon, in fact they are very common. The 2 precent Jewish estaminate comes from the CIA world fact book and is already a part of the Demographics of Argentina page so I just put that there instead of having the articles saying two different things. I hope your not critizing me for putting bogus stuff up this was all from the previous Argentina page with the exception to the 2 precent Jewish estimate. I am sorry if my changes were very drastic, however Al-Andalus changed much and did the same and if I remember correctly you weren't to happy with it either. haha its okay I have had those days myself =P (DJBenny 01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Because of the possible errors in Clarin, i agree to delete. Now: someone changed "Himno Nacional Argentino" for "Marcha de la Patria", a name that has not been used for decades so I think i'll deletre that now. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Me being happy or unhappy about something is not the issue (I don't own this article) but whether the source is good and other editors agree (I mean especially those at WP:AR, who've been around for a while). I don't know how numerous German-descended people are; I think there are many but I don't have a number. According to the sources of Immigration in Argentina, in the period 1895-1947 there were more immigrants from Poland, Russia and France than from Germany. Placing Germany next to Spain and Italy suggests a very large contribution from Germany, which is not the case (and this is common public knowledge). I've just tidied up the article. You tell me what it looks like. It mentions the 97%, even though I still think it doesn't mean nothing (the CIA doesn't explain what it means, though it does say that "white" is considered an ethnic group, but see the problems with the term white). The Clarín ref is gone. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad to see a conclusionm. I would have to disagree with you on that one Pablo Germans have been a very important group moving to Argentina however most of them came after world war II so that be from 1945 all the way from 1955 around there. Even though we can not find an number of people who are German we know from our "common Argentine exprience" Germans are very common in Argentina. Many of the numbers I found were to varied so I really don't trust them. I found this one article: http://www.geographia.com/argentina/buenosaires/Index.htm saying that Italian and German names today outnumber Spanish names. So Germans must be, and I know just from living in Argentina pratically all my life that finding out Argentines with a German Ancestry. Also remember to be "German" back in 1800's and early 1900's was a very loose term most of since many Volga Germans came from Russia, which made up the bulk of Russian immigration to Argentina during the 1800's and early 1900's. Also from the Austrian-Hungrian Empire which much of there resident were also German. The reason I put German as the thrid because I feel that it is part of the "big three" for say obviously Italians and Spaniards are more. Tell me Pablo-Flores How is it learning Japanese?(DJBenny 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Dunadan YOU KEEP EDITING DATA THAT WAS REMOVED WITH THE CONSENSUS OF MANY USERS (and all the users woking regularly in this article) without consensus:

Why does the Demographics section start with the genetic research? It sounds illogical. The Genetical research should be a Nevertheless to the Argentina’s population is primarily of European extraction and not the other way around. Also, I thikn it would be best to leave this topics in a compact version for the Argentina article, to be expanded in the Demographics article, and not having several paragraphs duplicated!!!! Mariano(t/c) 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'll start rewording it. Al-Andalus 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mariano; as stated before, the main information must be on Demographics of Argentina. --Darklegions 06:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE IN DISAGRREMENT WITH THE MAJORITY (as you can see in your post below), I'm going to ask for protection again, if you don't at least discuss with the users that agreed with delete the article because it wasn't relevant and it had several critics:

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 Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

190.16.28.25 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)snowhite1985190.16.28.25 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edition WHAT DOES A GENETIC STUDY OF ONLY 10 PROVINCES OUT OF 24 in the country about some distant native american ancestry has to do with demographics???? Norwegians have a 2% of african admixture is this important at all??? I doubt it....

190.16.31.79 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Marie190.16.31.79 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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!!.

Information source

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

• Info
• Info
• Info+Maps
• Geography+turism
• History+Geography+Literature+Biographies
• History
• Monographies

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

Sport

I've made this less partisan but have not verified what is said. There are very few references in this section which is worrying SuzanneKn 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Railways in Argentina

I'm copying this from my talk page. The guy has a point, but I'm not sure what to do. The relevant diff is not helpful anyway, and I know next to nothing about this topic, or where to look.

Hola, soy galio de la es: con unos minutos de tiempo libre que no bastan para loguear allá. Cuestión que le pasé una revisada rápida al artículo Argentina en inglés y aparentemente, en algún momento entre la vez anterior que lo leí y esta, alguien modificó el apartado sobre transporte. Donde antes decía que la red ferroviaria cayó en desuso y deterioro notorio desde la liquidación de FA en 1993, hoy dice algo como que "después de décadas de falta de mantenimiento y malos servicios, los ferrocarriles se privatizaron en 1993". No sólo es tendencioso, sino que omite la parte más importante —el hecho de que hubiera trenes hasta el '93 y no después— y para peor es falso.

La cantinela de la falta de mantenimiento es más para Dromi que para una enciclopedia, y aunque desde 1955 las sucesivas administraciones se encargaron de ir destruyendo los ferrocarriles, decir que FA no hacía mantenimiento es una mentira infundada como decir que Gas del Estado no hacía obra. Hasta 1993 los 34.000 kilómetros de vías entonces activos eran operables, con una mayoría de vías en buen estado, servicios de pasajeros a todo el país. Incluso durante los años '80 se hicieron cosas, como la electrificación del Roca, la nueva señalización del Urquiza —que ALL desmanteló—, etc. Perdón que te lime, pero un poco de evidencia empírica para respaldarme no sobra. ¿Podrás hacer algo? Los historiales de la en: me pierden, pero en algún lado está la frase vieja. Saludos y gracias. --200.85.115.19 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in Argentina#The railway system is not helpful either, and moreover, it lacks sources and the presentation sounds a bit POV. Please help! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the diff you cite refers to my edits, where I tried to improve the phrasing of what was written before. I agree that it might sound POV as it stands now, but I don't agree with the statement that the trains disappeared only after the privatization; that's clearly biased without discussing the politics behind the lack of maintenance in the railway system. Long distance trains disappeared long before the privatization in many places, and the fact that sleeper bars made of quebracho were for sale at auctions all over the country I think prevented trains from using the railway, wouldn't it? I couldn't find the version the user talks about, but reading his opinion I think I support the current version over it. -- dockingman^talk 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My only problem is the lack of sources. It doesn't matter what our opinion is; we need objective assessments of the state and quality of railways, which is a huge topic in the case of Argentina, and a very significant one as well. If you have sources that you can cite, or people you can consult about this, please put them forth. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics section

An anon user was moving things around here and I reverted the change. Have a look at the history and see if you want to leave a comment here. I am quite happy with the section as it is, I think. --Guinnog 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a sizable Black population in Argentina? I know in the past there was a large population outnumbering whites. Were they affected by assimilation? From "whitening" the population (that is encouraging European immigration for "development")? Or were they annihilated by the Argentine government (which wouldn't surprise me)?

There used to be a small black population in Argentina, which has now virtually disappeared. It is absolutely inaccurate that there ever was a large enough black population in the country that outnumbered non-blacks. As in the rest of the continent Arfican blacks were brought in as slaves but in much smaller numbers than in other countries in the region. Initially there was a majority of natives; those populations were indeed decimated by disease, slavery and massacres. As late as the mid- to late-19th century there were "campañas al desierto," state-organized military expeditions to the south (Patagonia) to take land and eliminate natives. Corto 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question(s). Whether or not Argentina had a small or large Black population, the fact is they had a population nonetheless. How did they virtually disappear? Miscegenation or conspiracy?

There was no Conspiracy. They disappeared because they lived in plagued areas of the cities in Argentina and died by the thousands, which led them to dissapear, to pretty much disspeared. So he did answer your question they disspeared much like the Natives did. So yeah like you said before your right.

Argentina never had a large black population because it never needed the workforce. Slaves were used in plantations, mines, all things that do not exist in the central territory. In the north, there was native population that was force to work in mitas. So, they were reduced to work in houses as personal service staff, never in a large number. Also, the independence army used them a lot as a cannon fodder, because the survivors were granted with the liberty. Rosas did the same in 1830. When, in 1853, the slavery was abolished, the presence of black people was minimal. Then, in the war of the Triple Alliance they were conscripted with gauchos, beggars and criminals and fought in frontline regiments. Few survived the war, and most of them died in the yellow fever epidemic of 1860. BorisDelMas 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing some reading I found that there was a sizable population of blacks in Argentina during the 19th century. I found that during the Rosas´ rule 30% of the population was black (which mean 1 out 2 was black! that seem pretty important to me). Although it varied through out the country sometimes even reaching 50% in the northeast(Catamarca)!. Also there was a need in work force since Argentina was a colony, blacks worked in mining and agriculture (cattle); they were also used in domestic labor (servants). As for the disappearing, there aren't many documents about it, but many theories try to explain this event. Most historians agree that blacks were forced to enlist in the military and they were send to the battle front, usually used as shields. Also since slaves were expensive to keep, especially the ones working in houses, enjoyed a high standard of living (compare to other slaves), when they were freed, they didn't have any resources to make a living so many just died of hunger or sickness (yellow fever epidemic of 1860). Other part of the population they mixed with the Europeans, thus giving birth to the "gaucho" culture as well as the tango and milonga (which in the 19th century was though to be a dance for the low class)here is the link I found most of the info, this a government site, so i think is a good reference. (its in Spanish,) link I think that blacks were very important in the early culture of Argentina, and many ppl diminish how much importance they had in the construction of the country and identity of Argentinians, but thats just an opinion, some ppl say that we cant talk about the blacks disappearing, because the fact that some little mixture remains in some of the population; especially those families that have been living in the country for a longer time Ckill 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Source fails to say what you have stated especially since Blacks where never a very large group in Argentina to begin with as it already discuss. Futhermore this mixing you talk about is minimal since studies show only 2-5 precent of Argentines have some African Lineage. Tango also has been proven to not have African influence( and it quiet obvious it doesn't) Since the word Tango also existed back then in Spanish. To me it seems this source is undependable. The Guacho Culture was not purely based on Black-Argentines, The Spaniards were the ones who introduced the whole ""cowboy"" way of living to the new world, so thats another thing that is your wrong with your statement. Also, It is true that Blacks dissapeared, all you have to do is look at Argentines and studies done.(XGustaX 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

So wait your saying that 30% percent is not a large population, of course this in percentage, the total population of Argentina we indeed very minimal, i do i greed with that; but we cant denied that there a was a population, which in numbers may not have been very big compare to colonial country, but they were a sensitive part of the population. I don't argue with the fact that there is only 2-5 percent of African linear, since i said "the fact that some little mixture remains in some of the population", i never said BIG, i said little. Tango does have some black influence, as well as indian influence, but i would not call it major influence because Argentina was a melt paint for many cultures.Here is a source if you doubt me link, source states that the dance that this blacks, Indians, gauchos, sailers and mulatons dance was not per say tango, but it became the base by which it was developed, thus my point is proven, there was an influence. Saying that the word is Spanish origin doest prove anything, they named it that, because everybody spoke Spanish. You said that it obvious that it does not have influence, thats is a presumption statement, (so because they not dancing samba and playing the drum they are not black???!) and i think is wrong to assume things which we clearly none of use are experts, we as writers should always keep an open mind. Well you are right though that gaucho is not purely base on blacks argentine, but it would be wrong to deny their influence. The previews source (link) states that although the diminution of the black population is very real, it would be illegitimate to talk about blacks disappearing, since there been a clear influence in politician and society discussion, and that there have been a project during the 1890s to whiten the Argentinine population. One more thing, next time plz put some refences, so i can see from where your are supporting your arguments. thx Ckill 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For one your 30 precent figure is completely mistaken it was at the very max. 10 precent.[1] So based on that your sources are flawed. Try to get Offical sources that know about what they are talking about It Tango has been proven to have no African, Especially no Indian influence since most of the Indians were killed.[2]. Tourism websites are not authoratative sources and we do not use them here. The article states that some Guachos were Mulattos then again this does not mean they influenced the Gaucho way of life especially since most of that life style comes from Spanish. You say that the disappearance of blacks is very real then again it it isn't? You cannot flip flop one way or another since your already flawed sources talk of no such ""clear influences"" since most were killed off! Your sources are flawed I would like you to find sources that are actually authoratative.(XGustaX 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I have found several source that support many of my points: here they are 1 this an article from the washington post, 2, 3 This is the previews source that i posted, this source was written by Miriam Victoria Gomes who is a professor of the university of buenos aires (Integrante de la Sociedad Caboverdiana; de la Cátedra Abierta de Estudios Americanistas (UBA) y de la Unión de Mujeres Afrodescendientes de la República Argentina.) this the full title, so i guess my source is pretty revelant since it was written by an expert in the field, i didn't not know this when i first posted the source. If you check at the button of the page there is also a bibliography of where she is supporting her argument,4 Written by Lucía Dominga Molina, founder of Casa de la Cultura Indo-Afro-Americana., 5 an argentine journalist., in regard of thango, 6 this a long interview with Robert Farris Thompson (Professor Thompson is Colonel John Trumbull Professor of the History of Art at Yale University), this a a reviews of thomsons book, it says some of his arguments 7, I dont have to time now to look for more in depth resource about tango, but ill go on posting them as i find them. Tell what you think about my resouces. Ckill 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Afro-Argentines never made up a huge amount like Brazil which you seem to be comparing it to. All your sources even say the same thing. We have discussed the World bank source it was a survey which is completely different. Your other sources are deff. lacking I would have agree. I mean the second one was almost purely based on factual oppion. You Keep trying to give us information of the history of Argentina before its great immigration and we know all that. Even though your sources are either incorrect or just based on peoples historical opinions on the subject. That is proabably what they mean, since that has also already been discussed. It was thought that Tango had African roots because of its name but now it is no the word Tango existed in Spanish before. (24.60.175.168 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Your last source states nothing about what you claim. Addition He is right we have already discussed the World Bank survey and its just that a Survey, nothing Scientific about it. What I told you before about the genetics was the scientfic finds and all your sources state the same time after time. That Afro-Argentines have almost completely dissapeared althought. Apparently they don't know what they are talking about because they are contridicting what most sources say of Afro-Argentines. Most Africans in the those provinces they speak about were there for a short time and then sold up north to Peru they never stayed long in Argentina. That is why there were never large numbers. I don't get why you keep citing sources like this. If you look above in the conversations they explain all about Afro-Argentines. Most were killed off and this fact is well known Ckill. I have to agree with the user above your about your sources even the Washington post they have some errorous information since many have proven that Africans died by the thousands in the Paraguayan war and the Yellow fever that struck Argentina in 1870s. They all either don't state what you say or are based on opinons of the author. (XGustaX 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

yeah i do agree that now at days afro-argentine are a minimal group, i guess i was trying to prove their importance in the past. Anyway i agree with that some of the sources are bases on on opions. I still have a doubts, all of my sources states that there was about a 30% percent of afros in argentina in 1810, other claim it was 30% in buenos aires; but you claim is 10%, which one is it?.Thx for the discussion it has been very helpful to me to learn a lil about wikipedia since im new to these. 201.81.37.164 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's no Problem I am glad you learned something. I am glad also. Yeah thats something you learn I guess. I am glad to meet you take care. If you have any more questions feel free to message me. Have a good one.(XGustaX 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

GDP

Hey guys, I keep on seeing people changing the GDP per capita in the table; the changes are reverted very quickly because they are anonymous edits without an edit summary. However, now I see the point of the changes: the data currently in the article looks like the one from 2005, the updated values are in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, 2006 and are actually the ones that editors were adding, but without sourcing. I updated the data and filled the edit summary, hope it's OK. Cheers! -- dockingman^talk 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Sorry I didn't do it myself, but I'm loosing too much time cheking my overgrown watchlist for vandalism... Mariano(t/c) 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pleased to help! -- dockingman^talk 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's playing with the demographics section? / Who change the major ethnic Spanish groups

Someone change the demograohics sections with incorrect information again. Pablo you are the one that keep this articles so well written could you ask for protection against vandalism???.

Someone deleted the info of Galicians Basque and Catalans being the most important ethnic Spanish groups in the country. Who could do that? I changed it again. I think we don't even need sources about that fact do we? Go to the Basque Argentinian official site 10% of the population is Basuqe!! and 80% of the Spanish immigration in the 20th century was Galician!. God! WHo change that?? It couldn't be n Argentinian who pass primary school god!!. I hate people without sources and reliable information who change data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.16.20.183 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 November 2006.

I moved your comments down here and signed them for you. Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, and sign them using four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep track of who is saying what and when.

There are many people working to keep this article well-written, not just me, but most of us also have other things to do. It's important that wrong data added to the article can be spotted quickly and removed. The best way to do this, when the data is clearly not correct, is by reverting (see Help:Reverting).

The demographics section of this article has been a problem since... ever. At least on my watch, anything edited in that section and others without a good justification will be reverted as soon as I spot it; but I'm not watching all the time. I could protect the page, but this is not vandalism, it's simply people altering an article to reflect what they believe is true, without taking the time and effort to check the facts. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to revert the text when i see changes. But i've seen how many problems we have had with that section and i like the way it is now. It couldn't be beter and more precise and accurate than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.226.252 (talk • contribs).

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

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

Latter part of article needs major cleanup

Wow, the Sports section is a disaster in format, and the language section has been added with several uncited claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The dugout (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree I will try to help. (24.60.166.114 02:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

It's terrible, and Fabricio Oberto is missing and he just had a double-double in the NBA conference finals. Please fix it... oh yeah, and it says football, but those are all SOCCER players.

Education

At the end of the first paragraph of that section it says: "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, comparable to other developed nations" implying that argentina is a developed nation as well, that sentance has to change, what about "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, which is very good for a developing nation" --Supaman89

Ok, I've fixed the problem. --Supaman89

Supaman, you are right that the sentence implied (incorrectly) that Argentina was a developed country, but I am afraid that the new sentence does not sound encyclopedical. I would propose the following: "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, comparable to developed nations"; thus, eliminating the word "other" we get to eliminate the implication of Argentina as a developed country (which is not, as it is already very clear in the rest of the article). Do you oppose to such wording? --Diegou 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm what about, "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%, the second highest in Latin America, just after Uruguay" --Supaman89

I think I would be better to settle with "Today the country has a literacy rate of 97.5%". By adding the link to the list of countries by literacy rate, any person can have his own conclusions and we will avoid any dispute on whether Argentina's literacy rate is higher/lower/comparable to any other country. I am correcting the wording in the article.--Diegou 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure I don't really mind. Now changing the subject a little bit, what do you think about the question bellow, about the city of "La Plata" being the first city in Latin America with electric street illumination. --Supaman89

Honestly, I do not know. Have you tried to google it? It sounds to me as feasible, since La Plata was made from scratch at the end of the 19th century, as the capital city of the richest province of Argentina, and at a moment of big prosperity in the country. But I ignore the source of the information. We might wait a few days to see if the author replies. If not, a citation needed should be added.--Diegou 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is that feasible, usually the first city to have the latest technology is the capital city, maybe instead of La plata, it was Buenos Aires, or maybe it wasn't an argentine city at all, I don't really know, but I couldn't find anything that refers to this "Fact" rather than this site, which of course takes its information from Wikipedia :D. --Supaman89

Hey, I found this link that says that La Plata was in fact the first city not only in Argentina but in whole South America with electric street illumination: http://www.edelap.com.ar/120/llego.htm

The citation does not extend to the rest of Latin America, but it gives a reasonable indication that the assertion might be right. You might check in which year Mexico got electric street illumination for the first time, in order to check whether the assertion is still true in other Latin American countries not belonging to South America.

In any case, let's see if the editor that put the phrase finally appears and gives us his source.--Diegou 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this website, from the Mexican government that states that Mexico City started having electric street illumination in residential areas in 1881, four years before the city of La Plata, but it wasn't until 1885 that it started to spread throughout the whole city, now it depends on your criteria to think whether Mexico was in fact the first country in Latin America to have this kind of technology or both Mexico and Argentina had it at the same time. --Supaman89

Interesting. Then, I will put a "citation needed" until someone comes up with the proper source. Regards. --Diegou 14:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who advocates for the Falkland Islands to be considered in any way as part of Argentina is a fascist.

There is universal agreement among the residents of the Falkland Islands that this territory 1) is and 2) should be part of the UK. The UK also exercises the actual governmental authority over this territory, and maintains a military force to (rightfully) enforce that authority.

The only reason some Argentinians (and I don't care if it's 99% of them) consider this a "sensitive" issue is because they are fascist nationalists who want to impose their will on a foreign people, as is anyone who takes their side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.2.173 (talk • contribs).

Map

I propose we use the CIA map and don't use the changed map which show the Falkands as a part of Argentina Somethingoranother 23:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So you propose using the map you have removed three times? Hmmm. I am fine with using it, it was the existing status quo before you started editing. It is a good map and its copyright status allows us to use it. Why were you trying to remove it in the first place, and why have you changed your mind? --Guinnog 23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was simply that the previous one had been unfairly edited to make the Falkands the same colour as Argentina, something which is unfair on those who live in the Falkands. Somethingoranother 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are, once again, pushing your own POV in articles. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Somethingoranother, even though argentines claim the "Falkland Islands" or as they call them "Islas Malvinas" are part of Argentina, they're technically part of the UK. --Supaman89

I'm pushing POV? lol you're pushing POV by constantly changing the map back to the previous edited one which shows the falklands in the same colour as argentina. why can't you let the neutral, unedited CIA fact book one be used? Somethingoranother 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is supposed to be NPOV on here and you keep changing the map to a POV bias edited map which simply offends. I am going to change the map to the undedited CIA fact book map which someone else agreed with before you came along Somethingoranother 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the map to the neutral unbias map from the CIA fact book, replacing the edited map which is the same map but had been edited to make the Falkands the same colour as Argentina. This new map supports NPOV Somethingoranother 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have got consensus 2 other people already agreed the new one is better and guinnog said the new one does seem better. Only you seem to have a problem with it. Somethingoranother 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Guinnog did not agree with you but instead, quite clearly, agreed with leaving in the original photo. One person agreeing with you isn't consensus. Two people agreeing with you isn't consensus. It takes more than a half hour to garner consensus. Please stop making POV edits. IrishGuy ^talk 00:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Common people this is about facts, and the fact of the matter is that the Falklands are not part of Argentina. --Supaman89

As the original map very clearly indicates. --Guinnog 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We should keep the CIA map and not the one that shows the falklands as a part of Argentina.--Wesborland 13:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, people, as all of you know (or should know, if participating on this debate), the issue of the Islas Malvinas is very sensitive to the Argentines and to the inhabitants of the islands. We will not end this debate with one part getting consensus for its position, since there will always be a bunch of others supporting the other position. A compromise position should be reached.

I think that the thing that is disturbing for the pro-Argentina position is that the Islas Malvinas are marked with the same color of the rest of the foreign countries. Can I suggest to mark the islands with a different color, for instance green, so as to make clear that the islands are under an anomalous status (anomaly accepted by the UN by admitting that there is a sovereignty dispute, many countries (especially in Latin America) do not recognize the British sovereignty and support Argentine claims, etc.)?

I know this solution would be unsatisfactory to both positions, but would all agree on it as a compromise?--Diegou 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopaedia and the fact of the matter is that the Islands are not part of Argintina they are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. In this instance Somethingoranother is correct to use the image as published on the CIA website (without alterations). A few countries accept Argentina's claim, but most accept the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, significantly the Falkland Islanders themselves. « Keith » 16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Argentina and some other countries (as you say) do consider the islands as part of Argentina. And the UN General Assembly and the UN Decoloniztion Committee have many times officialy recognized that there is a sovereignty dispute and called the parties to negotiate. I am not sure whether most of the countries accept the UK claim (I could not find any list, so I will be thankful if you have one), but even so it is clear that there is no global recognition on the islands sovereignty.

So, I come back to my conclusion that the situation is anomalous, and to my proposal of marking the islands with a different color.--Diegou 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually only a handful of South American countries support Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands, even such South American countries as Chile oppose Argentina's claim. Support for Britain's claim can be found in many places such as the European Union, particularly France amongst others, which showed support for Britain when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, and generally continues to do so to this day. The United States officially kept itself neutral on the issue because it has treaties with both Britain and Argentina but makes no attempt to hide its support for Britain to continue its control of the Falkland Islands, as it did during the Falklands War by offering material aid and intelligence to Britain to ensure they recaptured the islands. Ronald Reagan later spoke openly that he personally supported Britain during the Falklands War but had to keep the United States officially neutral as it considered itself an ally of both countries. The United Nations during the Falklands War issued a resolution calling for both sides to cease hostilities and for Argentina to withdraw from the Falkland Islands. This proves that the majority of the world considered Argentina's move to invade the Falkland Islands as aggressive and wanted Argentina to leave the Falklands and therefore be returned to British control. The reason for this was if Argentina could claim territories it may once have held many centuries ago then all countries could follow suit and hence no country could be safe from another country making a claim to territories they may have once held at some point in history. Aside from history, the reason why the map used by Wikipedia to display Argentina's political borders should be that of the neutral United States government organisation, the CIA, is that the CIA's map is a neutral, non biased map of Argentina as the CIA is required by the United States government to show no bias towards either party on the issue. Rather than use an altered version of the map, which has clearly been altered to show a point of view in favour of Argentina, which breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we should instead use the CIA's map, which has favour of almost everyone who has discussed this issue. Somethingoranother 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

France only "supported" Britain during the Falklnads War when Prime Minister Thatcher threatened to nuke the Argentine city of Cordoba if the French War Minister didnt give Britain the codes to disarm the french-made exocet missiles sold to the Argentines not long before the war. France barely supported Britain - especially as it made France look like a laughing stock to the rest of the world's arms trading markets!

I see that you say that I am trying to mark the islands with the same color of Argentina, so I guess you did not follow my reasoning and neither understand my proposal. What I proposed above was to mark the islands with a color different from Argentina's and from the rest of the countries, considering the anomalous position regarding sovereignty recognition by the rest of the world. What I said above is that marking the color with either Argentina's or the other countries color would raise POV claims, which is easily demonstrated by the different positions here. Also, what I said above is that no possible consensus would be reachable, and that's why I proposed a compromise solution.

Regarding the rest of your post, there are some inaccuracies that I am willing to correct.

As to Chile, although supported UK during the war, currently supports Argentina's claim (see http://www.region.com.ar/pehuenche/noticias06/noticias2006_04.htm). And it is not only a handful of South American countries that support Argentina's claim, but all of them (see http://www.comunidadandina.org/documentos/dec_int/dec_cochabamba_malvinas.htm).

As to the US, as you well say, it is officially neutral. The personal opinion of Ronald Reagan after leaving the White House is not US policy.

Regarding the UN Resolution during the war (I guess that you refer to UN Security Council Resolution No. 502), you are right in the sense that it proved that the majority of the world considered Argentina's move to invade the Islands as aggressive (which I agree it was), but it cannot be inferred that it implied that the majority of the world wanted Argentina to leave the Falklands and therefore be returned to British control. The Resolution of the UN Security Council only intended to preserve the ante bellum statu quo. This is easily demonstrated by UN General Assembly Resolution No. 37/9 of 11/04/82 (i.e., the same year of the war), requesting "the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"; i.e., the majority of world still acknowledged after the war that there was a sovereignty dispute yet unsolved. This call was repeated by UN General Assembly Resolutions Nos. 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, and by many resolutions and press releases of the UN Decoloniztion Committee.

Incidentally, this year the Organization of American States (see http://www.oas.org/speeches/speech.asp?sCodigo=06-0120) and the Ibero-American Countries Summit (including all Latin American countries plus Spain and Portugal) (see http://www.oei.es/xvicumbrecom.htm#6) have again called the parties to resume negotiations on the issue of the sovereignty .

I do not have information of countries other than the South American countries (supporting Argentina's claim) or the EU and the Brithis Commonwealth (supporting UK's claim). Especially regarding the major countries, we just saw the the US is neutral, but I would like see something about Russia, China, India, etc. I will be thankful if you can provide a sourced list showing which country in the world supports each position.

Anyway, even if only a handful of South American countries suppport Argentina's claim (which we have seen that it is not true), it is still true that UK's sovereignty on the islands is not globally accepted.

So, having concluded that UK's sovereignty is not universally acknowledged and that some countries recognize Argentina's claims, I repeat again my proposal of marking the islands with a different color. Since such color would be different from Argentina's and the rest of world color, I cannot think of a most NPOV compromise.--Diegou 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have considered your proposal to change the colour that the Falkand Islands are represented in and have decided that this would only confuse readers into thinking that the Falkland Islands are in some way joint controlled, which is certainly not the case as the Falklands are fully under the control of Britain. Argentina only has a claim to the Falkland Islands and has no form of control over them. You make a case that not all countries support Britain's control over the Falkland Islands and that somehow this invalidates Britain's control over them. This contradicts with other cases such as Taiwan’s defacto independence or China's control over Tibet, which many countries do not support but fact is fact and the majority of people acknowledge this and simply present the facts. Many territories around the world have had a claim made upon them by another country but this usually has little effect in most cases but seems to have been embroidered in this case, most probably because of the question it brought up at the time as to whether Britain was still a major power or not. Most of all the Falkland Islanders themselves want to remain under British control, something which Argentina totally disregards and obviously disregards the notion of self-determination of peoples. The issue over the Falkland Islands continues to this day because when the Argentine government of the time invaded the Falkland Islands they did it mainly to try to win over support from their own people who were sick of the ailing dictatorship government which had caused Argentina to almost collapse. They also thought that capturing the Falklands would gain them international standing. Argentina completely underestimated Great Britain and when their plan failed it back fired on them and brought the end of their government. Argentina today has learned from its mistake of underestimating the power of Great Britain and has given up hope of trying to invade the Falkland Islands again and so thinks if it just continues its claim to the Falklands maybe it will save them some face. Somethingoranother 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture, but you are not a scholar (neither am I) and this is not what we are discussing here. There are tons of pages of reputed scholars (both in Argentina and the UK) discussing every and each topic of the hyperoversupersimplificated analysis of your post, so I advice you to go there and see that every party has reasonable arguments to sustain its claim, and that the issue is a little bit more complicated than what you think.--Diegou 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest as a compromise that the map showing the Falkands as Argentine be displayed on the Spanish Wikipedia article and the map showing the Falklands not as Argentine be displayed on the English Wikipedia therefore following general readers' consensus on the issue. Somethingoranother 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, it is a terrible and incoherent solution. Anyway, you already changed the map alleging a "majority of consensus in discussion". What is that? Is there majority or there is consensus? I don't see any consensus here (IrishGuy, Guinnog and I were against your proposal), so maybe you are resorting to majority. In that case, you reached the result I was trying to avoid by my compromise solution: Some people agreeing with the final result, while others in complete disagreement. Fine for an encyclopedia, isn't it?

Oh, you threatened that "Anyone who reverts this change are breaking 3RR and NPOV, will be reported" (sic), so I realize now that you are not intending to reach any consensus, but only to push your POV. Your resort to 3RR and NPOV is completely wrong (please read Wikipedia policy before resorting to such threats), but I do not want to go on this silly discussion. Do whatever you want (well, you have already done it).--Diegou 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who advocates for the Falkland Islands to be considered in any way as part of Argentina is a fascist.

There is universal agreement among the residents of the Falkland Islands that this territory 1) is and 2) should be part of the UK. The UK also exercises the actual governmental authority over this territory, and maintains a military force to (rightfully) enforce that authority.

The only reason some Argentinians (and I don't care if it's 99% of them) consider this a "sensitive" issue is because they are fascist nationalists who want to impose their will on a foreign people, as is anyone who takes their side.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.2.173 (talk • contribs). 23 January 2007

Hello, I am from the Falklands and I can't believe this conversation. It is crazy to think anyone of you are Falklanders. We are senatative about our Sovereignty, but we do not hate Argentines or anyone else for that matter. Stop Aruging. (24.60.166.114 02:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Somethingoranother: You should press "refresh". For the last 15 years Chile has supported Argentina, and so has done every country in Latin America, Unless you consider the french piece of Canada a "latin" place.

Keithgreer said :"the Islands are not part of Argintina they are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" Im sorry but I dont understand. They have a legislative power without the power of changing the falkland's law, because they have to use the english law; they have an english governor and the supreme court is in england. Self-Governing? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest an organized vote of what choice to take just to clear it up with no resentments? I have experience seeing arguments in which one side constantly claims numeric superiority on the base of ambiguous answers, and one simple accountable voting is generally the best solution.

And if not, my opinion is that Falklands/Malvinas is indeed UK territory. I'm Argentinean, I grew up using maps in geography classes that had Falklands as part of our territory, and I've always believed it was moronic. Regardless of whatever claim we may or may not have, Falklands is right now under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, therefore, NOT OURS even if they were rightfully so (Which is an argument I’m not going to get into)

And on the fascist comment 71.52.2.173, please watch your goddamn mouth and don't make sweeping generalizations. Ephyon 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ephyon, this discussion already finished some time ago, with a result that I think is acceptable to everybody: The islands are shown with a color different from Argentina's, and it says that they are controlled by the UK and claimed by Argentina, all of that being true. --Diegou 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, let me be clear, this is my first time doing any comment on wikipedia, so pls be kind if I don't follow any implicit rule...

I just want to comment on something I just noticed on this article. In the second paragraph it is clearly stated that Argentina claims a slice of antarctica which is also claimed by Chile and UK, but the same conspicuous comment is not done in the articles of Chile and UK (OK, to be fair, at least in Chile's article it says that its a claim). I think that the same criteria should be followed for all articles, for example moving that information to the part referring to each province, in this case the province of "Tierra del Fuego, Antartida e Islas del Atlantico Sud" (in the case of UK's article you need to access the subarticle of the British Overseas Territories to find near the bottom some comment about the disputed claim).

Additionally, the map of Argentina shows the claimed antartic territory in a different color, while the map of the BOTs in the BOT article shows the antartic territory claimed by UK in the same color as all other BOT territories, no differentiation...

C'mon people, then if someone puts a map of Argentina with the political division of the country, which includes the south atlantic islands and antarctica (before anyone starts screaming about this, please note that I said political division, which is how the argentinian law distribute the territory), it is a big scandal...

Finally on this issue, I think that the best solution will be to use the offical map of each country on the article of each country. 69.249.68.167 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)SAM

I believe you should have placed it in the UK article, since denoting that a territory is not internationally accepted to belong to a country is not a minor peace of data. Here we are doing the right thing, clearly stating that those territories are under uneffective claims by Argentina. Thanks for your message. --Mariano(t/c) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree if you did not see it should have been added. However, after checking the UK article I have notice it is included in the main article, Under the Government and politics section, it is not an offical map though, Which should be added. Thanks for your message.(XGustaX 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

To something , I read up above, I hardly believe France supports either side of the Antartic claim since they also claim lands in the Antartic. Another thing I noticed we should up a bigger map of the Antartic claim on the main article. It is just a really small picture thats hard to see the clear boundaries of the claim. (24.60.175.168 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

ImageMap Hi, I made an Image Map for the politic map (http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Argentina_-_Pol%C3%ADtico_2.png) whoever holds the edit lock ov this page, feel free to contact me for the complete tag (I don't upload it myself because the page is locked for editing).Dgutson

Argentina's land area

I corrected the country's land area to its real one of 2,766,890, as it's usual that Argentines add the Falklands and other British islands to their maps, land area, etc.

Same goes to Antarctic lands, where no nation on earth has sovereignity in. It's just a protected area by Australia, Chile, Argentina, UK, US, Russia, Norway and France. But no one of these, including Argentina, has sovereignity rights upon this land, so you should not add the land area of Antarctica in Argentina's one (no one of the other nations does so). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theiasofia (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

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)

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: [3]) 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.[4] 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) 16:27, 19 February 2007.

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

Several things:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.""[5] 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” [[6]]. 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))

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 (Wikipedia:Attribution#Language) 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 [[7]]
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[8] 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 Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 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. [9](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 http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=0cb88fffdd28f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD. 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 Dúnadan 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: [10] (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[11]? It has been reverted. --the Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 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 (UTC)

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 Dúnadan 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) snowhite1985Snowhite1985 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 Dúnadan 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, [12]. 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 Dúnadan 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)

Amerindian and Mestizo blood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islas Malvinas

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 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 Dúnadan 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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.