The article reads:about 56% the of Argentines of origin amerindian. This appointment arose from a misinterpretation of the article in the daily Clarin. The study by Dr. Corach and Silvina Heguy on which it relied to write your article never gets to that conclusion.
The study analyzed 100 samples of southern Argentina, 220 samples from the north to center. If we take an average of these 320 samples to obtain 56% (actually 58%) contained genes Amerindians. As you have noticed, not taken into account that more than half the population is in the center of the country, so that 56% does not refer to the people of Argentina, but the average among these 3 groups of samples. Clarin however, decided to exaggerate by saying that 56% of Argentines have Native American genes; drawing their own conclusions when the study's findings did not say that.
The percentage of Native American descendants of Argentina would have analyzed a number of samples proportional to population density in each sector of the country. So most of the samples have come from the most populated cities (mostly in the Midwest) and Buenos Aires, Rosario, Mendoza, Santa Fe, etc. Something like 200 samples from the center of the country, 70 northern and 30 south.
I found an article more seriously, that is about the same study. This can clearly see that at no time conlusión reaches 56%: .Ccrazymann (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the remaining scattered locations of the few indigenous peoples left in Argentina after La Conquista del Desierto, but the map suggests the Falklands are part of Argentina. They are not. And even if there is some disagreement on this point, it might as well be left off anyway, as there has never been an indigenous population on the Falklands Islands. --Vinadanimex (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree I was just coming to the talk page to comment on this map. Bearing in mind that the issue of the Falklands is a sensitive one, we still have to stick to what is factually accurate. There was no indigenous population of the Islands prior to the arrival of the Europeans and no archaeological remains have ever been discovered of prior habitation, so it cannot be associated with any indigenous population in Argentina. Therefore, to include it in the map is not factually accurate and implies a political message that does not belong in this particular article. Walker Slake (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)