Talk:Argentina/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

SENSE

...In the past few decades, the mestizo population has increased due mostly to internal migrations from the Argentine interior to Buenos Aires and other large urban districts.

That doesn't make any sense If We're talking about an internal migration then the population would remain intact.

Demographics info is very far from scientific rigurosity (Your sources are newspapers for god sake!!) Only offical studies should be included in an encyclopedia otherwise the article is not neutral. Chelardo 08:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you quoted above refers to mestizo population in the larger urban centers. It should be corrected, but it's not difficult to see what's wrong and it's rather rude to call it nonsense. As for the sources, they're perfectly good studies that were cited in newspaper articles. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry ,I didn't mean to be rude but I still think is far from scientific rigurosity, we're talking about more than 20 million people, and that my friend is a whole bunch of people.You should specify in the same paragraph the amount of individuals that were studied. In the USA no one would ever make that kind of statement because DNA studies are unethical and related to hate groups.
By the way, I think the paragraph meant to say the following:
"In the past few decades, the mestizo population has increased due mostly to inmigration from other countries."
What do u think? Chelardo 06:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the para means that the visible mestizo population has increased due to internal migration from small rural communities to urban areas, so that official censuses and popular perception have seen an increase.
DNA studies are of course accepted, in the US and elsewhere - it's the National Geographic that is funding and disseminating much of this research. Like all scientific and statistical data it can be misused, but here results are simply being reported, not commented upon. Mtiedemann 07:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Only 3 out of 12 pictures currently being shown on this page are from outside Buenos Aires. Of course, for Porteños the rest of the country doesn't exist.

Marcelo

Salta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.168.7 (talkcontribs).

For porteños is hard to get pictures of other places, but if you are so concerned, you can upload images yourself by creating an account. (And if for porteños the rest of the country didn't existe there would be no pictures from outside Buenos Aires at all)Argentino (talk/cont.) 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Buenos Aires is the capital and its metropolitan area is home to one-third of all Argentinians; a (disproportionately) large part of everything Argentine (except the natural landscapes) is located there, or nearby. That's objectively true, so it's not surprising that we have more pictures from there. However, it's also true that the article should show more diversity. Like Argentino said, it would be nice if you took pictures of your place (or got someone else to take pictures) and uploaded them (try the Commons, see e. g. this). I've been doing this with Rosario and places I've been to, such as Córdoba (regretfully I've never been to Salta, though I eventually will). This is a collaborative encyclopedia, which is wonderful because instead of asking others to do something, you can go on and do it yourself. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True, poteños make up one third of Argentina's population (12 million people or so). Then, how come they don't even remotely think of the two thirds who don't live there? (roughly speaking, some 24 million people). Taking into account the proportion of people living in BA and comparing it to that of the rest of the country, any porteño contributor to this page would immediately have to realize that the article should show some balance, with no need to be reminded by that from a provinciano at all. But, of course, since the hinterland always comes last in your priorities, we have to sort of shout so as to make ourselves be heard.

Marcelo

Salta


That is not true, more than half of us has something to do with the provinces, and has relatives there. We are one united nation based on work and friendship. If what you what you want is that we travel one thousand and a half kilometers to take a picture and upload it for free, you are asking too much. Come on it, is not that difficult. I've been to Salta but haven't got digital pictures, perhaps you can take a picture of Salta's cathedral or government house at night, they look beautiful. If you are ever going south you could take some pictures of the Calchaqui valleys and if you want to help us a lot you could take a picture of Cafayate's cathedral. But if you don't want to help even with one picture, don't blame us for the lack of photos. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the complains, but what you [Marcelo] say is not fair. We contribute to several provincial articles and pictures. Unluckily, its hard to obtain pictures from place far from where we are, and what's worse, many of us aren't even in Argentina. Please, help us improve the Wikipedia providing pictures you took, or creating well documented articles on diferent topics. Mariano(t/c) 13:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And what would be the point in adding even one picture? I know it won't last a day before it is deleted by some so-called contributor from Buenos Aires.

Marcelo

Salta

Well, that is not true and if it is I'm not going to allow it. We are a country that adoptes for it's government the representative, republican and federal form so this article should show it. But please don't remove my comments. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There are users that hunt for copyrighted images and delete them, because they don't comply with the GNU license of Wikipedia. If you upload a picture you took yourself, and tag is correspondingly, it won't be deleted; I've already uploaded a couple of pictures from Salta. What's more, I don't know about any Argentine user being part of the copyrighted images patrol, so your accusations are empty, and your critics not constructive. Instead of just criticizing, write something useful about Salta. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 07:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

yes Marcelo you a wrong most Argentines live within Buenos Aires or the province so of course we are going to have a lot of pictures of it. Also it is the capital... and Buenos Aires has the almost same look as most other cities in Argentina even Salta except it is more colonial but still European nonetheless. You should also really calm down about all this you are getting angry over something not that big of deal. We are all one country. You speak like if Salta is a complete other country.(XGustaX 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

Adding pictures

I want to add some pictures I took myself, but have no clue on how can I do that here, any help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kapaue (talkcontribs) 21:29, 17 June 2006.

Go to the Wikimedia Commons. Get a user account there in the same way you did for Wikipedia. Once you're logged in, click on "Upload file" and follow the instructions. You'll be asked to select the file, give it a name (or keep the one automatically generated by the system), give your picture a summarized description, and a license (you should select one of the licenses that start with "Own work"; I prefer the CreativeCommons Attribution ShareAlike license). Press the "Upload file" button and you're done. An image uploaded in the Commons can be used in any Wikipedia, not only the English one.
To add an image here, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. In short, you need to write something like [[Image:IMAGE_NAME|thumb|200px|right|CAPTION]]. That shows a thumbnail version of your image, 200 pixels wide, aligned to the right of the text, with a CAPTION text below it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As a wikipedia artsit I dont usually say this, but this page is over diagramed. Either they need to be made smaller or some of the less relevant ones should be removed. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Necessity of the Dirty War

I've just reverted a change by Viewfinder (talk · contribs):

It is claimed by some commentators that the harsh measures [of the Dirty War] were necessary to tackle a ruthless Communist insurgency. But...

Given that Viewfinder just correctly reverted vandalism suggesting a justification for the Dirty War, I'm sure this is not s/he meant, but it does sound like a justification; moreover, it's hardly in context. In the paragraph above that, it already says that

During this period, extremists on the left and right carried out terrorist acts with a frequency that threatened public order.

The "ruthless Communist insurgency" was partly true, party a fiction of the Proceso. The "justification" was made by the juntas and then by other prominent members of society (even today), but it should be explained better, with very good sources, and probably not in the limited space of a general article but in Dirty War and/or History of Argentina. Tell me what you think. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was only trying to put an NPOV in place of the stuff I deleted. I have no particular opinion on the matter. It seemed to me to be a neutral commenr and I don't think your "highly inflammable" accusation is fair. Viewfinder 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC). I have no intention of contesting your revert. I have never been to Argentina and I am sure you know much more about this than I do, but I would have thought "rv - see talk page" would have been sufficient! Viewfinder 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The qualification was for the comment, not the editor. Sorry if I didn't make myself understood. For the more-or-less politically aware Argentinian, that was Hindenburg-class flammable. Some view the justifications of the dictatorship at the time as part of a strategy of tension, and defense of those justifications (i. e. fight fire with fire) is rebuked as a so-called "doctrine of the two demons". However, as I said above, it should be treated somewhere, so thanks for bringing it up. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The genetic testing is wrong

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))

www.geographia.com information is utterly ridiculous, as any sampling of an Argentinian phone directory would show :) Cinabrium 08:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal

The study by Corach et al. is not wrong: the data in the article at [1] (which, BTW, incurs in a lamentable confusion between haplogroups and haplotypes) is by no means "new research" invalidating the study. The characteristic distribution of A, B, C, D and X haplogroups is well known to human geneticists, and I'll be greatly surprised if Corach's team hadn't take that into account. But let's start from the beginning...

  • What does the study say?
    • That 56% of the a 12000-people sample shows american aboriginal genetic markers from female or male lineage, or both (in 10% of "positive" cases).
    • The study shows that 53,3% of mtDNA samples didn't show Amerindian markers (the 56% result is obtained by the combination of the results on Y chromosome DYS199 marker [male lineage] and mtDNA [female lineage]).
  • Who did it?
    • "Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas" (Genetic Fingerprints Service), Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Universidad de Buenos Aires. The main researcher, Dr. Daniel Corach, is a widely known human geneticist, having published dozens of papers on genetic identification of human groups (just google for his name); his main aide, Dr. Andrea Sala, has also wide experience in the field and has published a number of studies on the same subjects (Sala A., Penacino G., Goycoechea A., Carnese R., Tomeo A. and Corach D. (1996). The Genetic Structure of Four Argentine Ethnic Groups Reflected by the Analysis of Ten STRs. Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics 6 :662-664; Sala A., Penacino G. and Corach D.(1997) VNTR Polymorphism in the Buenos Aires-Argentina Metropolitan Population. Human Biology Dec. 69(6) :777-783; Sala A., Gustavo Penacino and Daniel Corach. (1998). Comparison of Allele Frequencies of Eight STR Loci from Argentinan Amerindian and European Populations. Human Biology Oct.70(5):937-947; Sala A., Penacino G., Iannucci N. and D. Corach (1998). STR Database from Argentina: Statistical Comparison with other Population Databases. Progress in Forensic Genetics 7 347-349.; Sala A., Gustavo Penacino, Raúul Carnese and Daniel Corach. Reference Database of Hypervariable Genetic Markers of Argentina: Applications for Molecular Anthropology and Forensic Casework. Electrophoresis (1999).208):1733-1739. to cite a few).
  • What does IPCB's article say?
    • "The concept of using genetic tests to prove Native American ancestry is of relatively recent origin, but there are many problems with it. Perhaps foremost of these problems is that to make a genetic test the arbiter of whether someone is Native American is to give up a tribe’s sovereign ability to determine its own membership and relations. But, even taken on their own scientific terms, these tests cannot do much to identify who is and who is not Native American, because they yield many false negatives and false positives. Therefore, they readily misidentify non-Native people as Native, and misidentifying Native people as non-Native, and the positive results they do yield are at best only probabilities. If these were medical diagnostic tests, they would never be approved or adopted.
But the most important argument against this type of testing to establish tribal affiliations is that biology (and genetics) track just part of our tribal inheritance. These DNA tests treat “Native American biology” as though all Indians were essentially the same. But in reality, it is our traditions that make us who we are, not just our biology.
  • Who wrote it?
    • Brett Lee Shelton, J.D., Director of Policy and Research for IPCB, and Jonathan Marks, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina and a member of IPCB's Board of Directors. None of them is a geneticist.
  • Is there any contradiction?
    • No, None at all. Corach's study indicates that a certain percentage of a population shows some established genetic markers.
    • Most specifically, they analyzed DYS199 marker in Y chromosome, and then the presence of haplogroups A, B, C, D and X2 in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
    • The analysis of DYS199 marker differs from the search for haplotypes M3 and M43 that, according to Shelton and Marks, yields "false negatives". But even if the former yields any rate of false negatives, that would say that 56% is the lower bound of Argentinians with some (and I undrline "some") indigenous inheritance.
    • Haplogroups A, B, C and D are also present in Altaic populations; haplogroup B is present among Japanese and is prevalent among Samoans. In fact, the presence of that haplogroups is one of the main arguments in support of the theory of Asian origin of amerindians through Bering Strait. We should agree that Altaic and/or Samoan immigration in Argentina lacks any statistical significance that would yield to "false positives".
    • Haplogroup X is quite different. In fact there are three variants of this group (see). X1 is not very significant, and is limited to North and East Africa and the Middle East. X2 is present in about 2% of European population, with a slightly higher proportion in Mediterranean Europe and Turkey, and higher concentrations in Georgia (8%), Orkney Islands (7%) and among Israeli Druses (24%). X2a is present among 3% of Native Americans, particularly among Ojibwa (25%), Sioux (15%) and Navajo (7%). "Distance" from X2a to X2 is similar to that from X2 to X1.
    • These data regarding mtDNA haplogroups geographical distribution is well known since long time, and of course known to Corach and his team.
  • Now let's make some assumptions...
    • If we assume that well known scientists became suddenly stupid and ignored the well known percentage of X haplogroup among European peoples, the Corach's study has a 2% range of error (do your own math!)
  • Conclusions
    • Corach et al.'s study and Shelton and Marks article point into different directions. The first studies human genotypes among Argentinian population. The second goes in subsidy of a political thesis (to which I strogly agree): that belonging to an aboriginal people is not a genetic, but a cultural issue.
    • Unless new research gives a counterproof to Corach's results, we should still consider them scientifically valid.
    • This is not a matter of "whiteness", "blackness", "brownness" or "pinkness" (for the Argentinians, and particularly those of Cordoba reading this, please remember the Cordobese chromatic scale: "verde botea, amarío patito y nero culíao" x-D). Fenotypical" Amerindian inheritance in Argentina is not very significant, but by no means could lead to the ridiculous 97% CIA figure; genotypical" Amerindian inheritance is significant. The great difference among the figures of population having Amerindian markers from paternal or maternal lineage and those having them from both shows the little numerical significance of aboriginal peoples in current Argentina's population and its development thorugh the last century.
    • Please bring the study data back (perhaps with a better wording, as "a study [ref] shows that about 56% of current Argentinian population have at least one Amerindian ancestor".

Please let me do a final remark: we're speaking of genotypes, not fenotypes. We are speaking of genetics, a useful manner to trace our ancestry and the places from where they came. We are not speaking of "races", whatever that word means. "Race" is not a scientific concept, but a political one. And, as said in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, "any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous."

Regards from the Far South, Cinabrium 08:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's been very clarifying. I still think that this should be mentioned, if at all, in Demographics of Argentina, since a precise wording would be a bit long, and a precise and detailed wording plus the unavoidable explanations (as above) would severely bloat the main article. Could you help us get a nice paragraph over there, which covers the results and (summarized) the possible objections?
You'll notice how I qualified the "97% white". I don't think the figure is very useful, but at least it appears that the CIA employed the self-identification method to get to it (that is implied in the term "ethnic group" that appears in the CIA Factbook). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all Just because they have these markers doesnt mean they have Native American blood. if 56 precent of the population has them that is still be determined as some and not all. So why is that any different? They are both creitable sources and they contrdict eachother the Clarin.com article does not state they looked over these halogroups either so you can not simply put it back. It is not a 100 precent genetic research study. Where are your sources stating that sciencist know about this also? The Clarin.com Article doesnt state this infact it states the same 5 Halogroups used, that this very article is saying proves negative results. (DJBenny 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, i thought we agreed with the removal... What is your point? Your argument does not disprove or make the Clarin study any more convincing. I mean It clearly states the halogroups they used and the opposing article says those Halogroups are found in many people throughout the world... (24.60.161.63 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

It is not the case that we can leave something out just because it doesn't look right. Cinabrium has provided us with a lot of information we didn't have before. Try to read it. I form my opinions with the information I have, and I have absolutely no problem with changing them. The study mentioned in Clarín is significant, and in fact I'd be glad to put it back somewhere, provided the possible problems are also mentioned, as discussed above. DJBenny, Clarín doesn't say that Corach et al knew this or that, but since he's an authority we should assume he didn't forget such important issues. Let me make myself clear: I couldn't care less what the final result is, as long as it is both correct and correctly expressed.Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


At least for me, I am sure they are saying the same thing,I dont think they are trying to leave anything out "just because it doesn't look right. I am not also saying the clarin article is worthless it is sigfiance but what does it prove? However your arugment is flawed because the Clarin article does mention they used Y-Chromsomes for research and Maternal DNA here where they say it: "En esa larga hilera de combinaciones que forman al Cromosoma Y, hay un marcador conocido con siglas y números: DYS199." You did not include the whole sentance it seems. This is exactally what the the other article is going against. You also said Johantan Marks has no genetic exprienece? You are mistaken then because if you click his name on the page it states that he is indeed an expert "Jonathan Marks, Ph.D., Vice-Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte. He brings expertise in molecular anthropology, evolutionary theory, history, human genetics, and sociology and philosophy of science." None of your information gathered however states what precentage is found in the Y-Chromsomes. And since they found that most Woman lacked this marker it does not determine that those 56 precent of Argenitnes had a Ameridian father. So your arguemnt is some what flawed. (69.16.84.36 00:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC))


Yeah to say Jonathan Marks is not a genetics experts and not finding out first is ridiculous. Also the M3 halogroup is linked with the DYS199. Known as M3/DYS199. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180698 So yeah this does relate to the Idigenious peoples page because they say spefically this halogroup is not reilable. Another article i found states this "Seven biallelic polymorphisms (M3 or DYS199, M19, 92R7, M9, YAP, M2 or DYS271, and RPS4Y711)" So they are the same gene M3 and DYS199. So it is still not only a Native American trait just like what the Idigenious peoples website. (DJBenny 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Also might I add X2 is not found in only 2 precent of Europeans: "Virtually all (97.2%) haplogroup X mtDNAs from the Near East, the South Caucasus, and Europe were found to belong to subhaplogroup X2...." http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000402.html it goes on to say once again what the IPBC said "Overall, it appears that the populations of the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe harbor subhaplogroup X2 at higher frequencies than those of northern and northeastern Europe (P < .05) and that X2 is rare in Eastern European as well as Central Asian, Siberian, and Indian populations and is virtually absent in the Finno-Ugric and Turkic-speaking people of the Volga-Ural region".(24.60.161.63 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

24.60.161.63,
Please read again what you have written. X haplogroup is found in about 2% of that population (however, you may find other figures up to 5%; statiscally good samples are rare). As I said above, X1 is quite uncommon, and your figure validates my judgement: 97.2% of X-haplogroup population belongs to the X2 subgroup. If you are really interested in this matter, let me suggest you a reading of the very article you are citing, Maere Reidla et al., "Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X", Am J Hum Genet. November 2003; 73(5): 1178–1190.

69.16.84.36,
I have not said that Dr. Marks has no genetics expertise; I've just said he's no a geneticist. His field of research is Anthropology, including the amazing field of Molecular Anthropology. If you take a look to the list of papers he published since 1991, you will see that they are mostly devoted to anthropological issues. On the other hand, neither I nor the Corach's paper are trying to say that 56% of Argentinians have an Amerindian father or mother, but that they have some (at least one) Amerindian ancestors. The marker will be present if the grand-grand-grand-mother of a subject's grand-grand-grand-mother was Amerindian, even if all the other 255 ancestors of the same generation were not. Unfortunately, I don't have the precise figures for Y chromosome tests (I couldn't put my eyes on the original paper yet) but some simple math helps :). If 47.7% of women had the markers, and the total figure is 56%, and 5.6% of the sampled populations show both paternal and maternal markers, men with Amerindian markers must be 13.9%. Anyways, this discussion is turning somewhat byzantine; I oppose the very concept of "race", and am just trying to point out that the hybridation between Aboriginal peoples and European immigrants was higher than the "common wisdom" might reflect.

DJBenny,
Please excuse me, but I don't understand your point. Not being a native speaker, I have some difficulties for reading your English. Could you please state it again? Thankyou!

Cinabrium 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, He can still be trust of course because of his background, it also states very clearly he is an expert in genetics so there is no arguing that point. All the research I have done it just validates his point even more. Yeah I am sorry I hope this is better, basically you said that the Idigenious peoples article only talks about the M3 and M45 haplogroup. yes this is true however, the clarin.com article spefically mentions very clearly that it used the DYS199 as you said. However, Cinabrium these are the same as you can see from the sources I looked up the M3 or DYS199 as it is also called. So the articles do contridict and one clearly shows why Native American testing is not reliable. So I think we shouldn't put up an article that is that clearly has strong research back behind it. I agree with you on the opppsition of "race" however, I don't believe putting up conflicting articles will make it any better. (DJBenny 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Not at all many he's has many papers on the that website that are about genetics. I agree with your point there DJBenny and Pablo-Flores maybe we could say something different instead of saying 97 precent of Argentines are white. However, the Clarin article is faulty , which this kind of thing happens in science often. (24.60.161.63 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC))