Jump to content

Talk:Argentines of European descent/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Who in the heck deleted the info box?

Do you have problems with your brain? Don't delete the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have problems with your manners? Don't insult the contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would apologize, if I cared Secret killer (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't care you're simply at the wrong place. Thus: "Vaya con dios pero vaya".TMCk (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re name the article

Considering: a) The article refers to Argentina's population of European origin; and b) "White Argentine" is no recognized as an ethnic group, as has been demonstrated. The most logical and neutral thing to do is to rename the article, to Argentine of European descent, or something like that. Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should us "Artintines of European descent"[1]Category:Argentine_people_of_European_descent[2][3]. While White_Latin_American also uses the word "white", I think it makes much more sense to call us white people Caucasians. It's arguable that most people in Europe and people of European decent are actually greyish or orange.Tim.thelion (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you seriously question the scientific accuracy of human whiteness? It is merely a name. Black people are not literally black either.Imnotpc (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox has a citation

Off2riorob wants me to make a discussion or he/she will report me for edit warring <--very scary. Which will possibly get me blocked for a x period of time.Secret killer (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not a discussion about your edit warring or my request that you discuss instead of revert warring, a discussion about your desired disputed addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no clue about what you are talking about. You and others have a dispute against the infobox being added, which I have already put in a citation but yet you guys keep removing it. I have already backed up my claim of why the infobox should be there. The collage did not have citations so I removed it. Secret killer (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
For an infobox to be justified, it has to be giving information about something. What is it supposed to be about? Since 'White Argentine' (or any close translation of) isn't a widely-used term within Argentina, it could be taken to mean multiple things. A citation that the CIA states that 97% (or whatever) of Argentines are 'White' tells you nothing unless you also know how they define the term. Likewise, given the vagueness of the term, any statements about faith etc are also of little significance. Is this the faith of those the CIA has decided to call 'white'? Or the small minority of Argentines (apparently) that actually describe themselves as white? The infobox seems to be little more than an attempt to disguise the fact that the article is about a vague and contested term, and as such is inserting a minority POV into the article as a 'fact'. It has no place in a neutral article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I second the "Grump's" thought.TMCk (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"What is it supposed to be about?"

It is giving information about white Argentinians. The title gives away the answer so vividly.

"Since 'White Argentine' (or any close translation of) isn't a widely-used term within Argentina, it could be taken to mean multiple things."

That is a claim that you have not proven. While I cannot prove that it is widely used since Argentina is a huge country. I can say that it was used by a lot of people when I was there.

"A citation that the CIA states that 97% (or whatever) of Argentines are 'White' tells you nothing unless you also know how they define the term."

Now you are arguing semantics. I do not see how this has anything to do with the infobox. That has everything to do with the introduction section. But anyways Argentinians of European descent are white.

"Likewise, given the vagueness of the term, any statements about faith etc are also of little significance."

It is not vague, it's very clear. Why are you talking about faith? That is irrelevant.

"Is this the faith of those the CIA has decided to call 'white'? Or the small minority of Argentines (apparently) that actually describe themselves as white?"

Faith has nothing to do with being called white. Small minority? You're argument makes no sense.

"The infobox seems to be little more than an attempt to disguise the fact that the article is about a vague and contested term, and as such is inserting a minority POV into the article as a 'fact'. It has no place in a neutral article."

Nope the infobox is a fixed-format table designed to be added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. You say it is a small minority that self identify as white but you have not provided proof of that claim. Secret killer (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"You say it is a small minority that self identify as white but you have not provided proof of that claim." Actually, I didn't say it, the article does: "...it is not currently used in Argentina neither as a legal/official term, nor in common speech". On the more general point, it is down to those who wish to include anything in an article to provide evidence that it is valid, not for others to disprove it. I say the infobox is attempting to convey information about a vague and contested term, and therefore its use is invalid. If you want to include it prove it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if the article says that since there is no citations to back up that claim. You can say what ever you want still does not mean anything. No you stated a claim so you have the burden of proof. It is not my job to prove a negative. I am reverting it back. Secret killer (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. If you want to include something, you have to provide reliable sources to back it up.This is fundamental Wikipedia policy. Provide evidence that 'White Argentine' is recognised as an ethnicity by a significant proportion of those you claim fit the category. Until you do, the infobox goes AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is not utter nonsense. Exactly and you should know very well that I already have. I have been saying this since the start. I am not going to tell you again. It is pretty obvious that you are not paying attention. Secret killer (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't waste energy, OBTUSE GUYS are not worthy of it.

Secret killer, I'm on your side on this. Don't waste your time arguing with these narrow-minded and blind guys (I have another word, but I can't write here for etiquette/politeness) -i.e. Off2riobod, GiovBag, Andy the Grump, etc.- who don't want to understand even when truth is in front of their eyes. THEY CANNOT EVEN PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER, FOR THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT "ARGENTINES OF PREDOMINANTLY EUROPEAN DESCENT" OR "ARGENTINES OF CAUCASIAN PHENOTYPE" IS A SYNONIM OF "WHITE ARGENTINES". I have your excellent work and the infobox saved up in three more wikis (One of them a fork of this one), so don't worry. I'm finding new sources to support the article, so in a few months I will restore the article to a better version. Relax, and don't waste energy and time arguing with obtuse guys who don't deserve it.--Pablozeta (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive input, Pablozeta. How is the search for new sources going? You seem to be getting further away from finding them each time you post here. I seem to recall back in November (I think) you were expecting a book in 4 weeks. Does time flow in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. I should have supposed you were British for your specialty is to bother Argentinians. The book was not what I expected, but I'm searching for sources all the time. I give you one here, where it provides information and some statistics on people who self-identified as "argentinos blancos". As our relationship is in such good terms, I won't help you with the language difference, find yourself a translator.--Pablozeta (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, on the subject of 'bothering Argentines' I was one of the minority at the time of the Malvinas/Falklands nonsense to oppose the entire thing, on the basis that it suited the ruling elite on both sides of the Atlantic to stir up trouble and divert the proles from domestic concerns. Still, you mustn't let awkward facts get in the way of convenient stereotypes, must you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Pablo, there is a logical fact. Maybe most Argentinians are European descent, but "European" is not an Ethnic group. There is a lot of ethnic groups in Europe. Then, even if you use "White Argentine" as synonim of "Argentine of European descent", it is not possible to say that "white Argentine" constitute an ethnic group. Do you understand? Finally, if for you are synonymous, why don't call the article: "Argentine of European descent". Title less ambiguous and perfectly accurate. That leaves out all the subjectivity involved in the differentiation of their physical features. Think about it.--GiovBag (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree for three reasons:
1) The title Argentine of European descent leaves out all the descendants of Middle Easterners. You may consider Syrian-Lebanese Arabs as "non-White", but Armenians are White, and they came from the Middle East too.
2) This title would also include Mestizo people, for they would have half-European ancestry. I oppose their inclusion for they have not Caucasian phenotype.
3) The title Argentines of predominantly European/Middle Eastern descent and Caucasian phenotype would be accurate from your point of view, but it is extremely -and unneccesarily- long, especially when you have the phrase "White Argentine" that summarizes it all.--Pablozeta (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to use 'phenotype' in the title an article on living persons, you are almost certainly going to discover that there are no reliable sources whatsoever which back up the usage this scientific term for individuals, and even if you did, it would achieve nothing because, as you should understand by now, 'phenotype' (a term from biology) has no connection whatsoever with ethnicity (a term from the social sciences). If you don't understand this, I'd recommend you study the subjects further before attempting to cobble together an article title to justify what is clearly a synthesis intended to support a minority POV concerning ethnicity in the Argentinian context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a devil's advocate.

Andy, and fellow readers:

That white Argentines exist, and that they recognize themselves as such (just as white Americans, white Cubans, or white Canadians might) is a matter of course, and can be seen in official publications such as this, Argentine academic papers such as this, academic papers from elsewhere such as this, critical pieces about white Argentines themselves, such as this, writings to that effect by Juan Bautista Alberdi (in his constitutional treatise, Bases) and Domingo Sarmiento (in his advocacy work, Facundo), not to mention observations by tour guide, magazine article, and country survey writers, who, having actually visited and lived in Argentina, agree that most Argentines are white, and that most see themselves as such (whether they feel hostility toward other races or not).

This is, moreover, a matter of consensus here and in practically all works of reference. It is, therefore, you who should attempt to prove that the opposite is true, and not the other way around. Barring that, we'll only conclude that you are playing the devil's advocate with the issue, and as such, are merely disrupting Wikipedia.

I will restore that infobox in a manner consistent with every other article about any given ethnic group in any other country. You have been asked to stop by others both here and in your personal talk page, and I will consider any other further reversals an edit war provoked by you.

My regards to everyone here, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sources you cite, I'll make the following comments:
(1) http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/paginas.dhtml?pagina=1669 makes no mention whatsoever of the word 'white'.
(2) http://www.iigg.fsoc.uba.ar/pobmigra/archivos/rc31.pdf Is in Spanish, and I'd rather not rely on Google translate when considering a controversial issue. Can you at least indicate where it discusses a 'white Argentinian' ethnicity? Also, for it to be accepted as WP:RS we'd have to know where it was published etc.
(3) http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1990/1/90.01.06.x.html makes no use of the word 'White'.
(4) http://www.mapuche.info/indgen/lavozdelinterior040328.html Is in Spanish, and again I'd rather not rely on Google translate, but it seems to be a discussion by a Dutch linguist, Teun van Dijk, On racism in Argentina, and nowhere asserts that "whites" are a self-identified ethnic group as such in that context.
To be absolutely clear about this, at no time have I (or anyone else that I'm aware of) disputed that most of the population of Argentina is of predominantly European descent, and nor have we disputed that to most outsiders most Argentinians 'look white'. That is not the issue. The question is solely whether 'white Argentinian' constitutes an 'ethnicity'. For this to be stated in a Wikipedia article, it would be necessary to provide WP:RS that shows that a significant proportion of this supposed ethnicity actually ordinarily define 'white Argentine' (or any reasonable translation of) as their ethnicity. So far, no source indicating this has been provided, and as such, the suggestion that 'white Argentine' is an ethnicity fails WP:V. Simply finding isolated sources that refer to 'white Argentines' is irrelevant unless this self-identified ethnicity can be proven, and as such is a waste of time.
As for 'edit warring', I'd point out that the infobox has been removed by several different editors, and frequent requests for discussion of the issue on this talk page have been largely ignored, or met with less-than-polite responses. If you think I've engaged in edit-warring, you are of course free to raise this in the appropriate place, but I'd recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A further point. As it stands, the infobox includes unsourced assertions of ethnicity for living persons (amongst those in the images). This not only breaches WP:V, but also WP:BLP, and the latter is of course specifically excluded by WP:3RR, so even if I was 'edit warring', removal of the infobox would not be a violation of policy. If I do not get an adequate response to this comment within the next four hours, I will remove the infobox again (I could do this right now, if I liked). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Sherlock4000 has chosen to reply on my talk page, rather than here, see User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Infobox deletion. As this response did not address the issues I raised here, I have again removed the infobox, as violating WP:BLP and WP:V. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This issue has now been raised here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#White_Argentine AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article for three days because of the reverting. Please use the time to reach a consensus, or start an article RfC if you can't agree. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

[moved from SV talk] I think I ought to point out that the version of the article currently protected appears to violate both WP:BLP and WP:V, in that the disputed infobox contains images and captions allocating an entirely unsourced 'ethnicity' to living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not ideal, if that's the case, but I don't see a BLP violation that would need to be dealt with urgently. Best to start an article RfC if you can't reach an agreement among the current editors, regarding (a) whether to have an infobox; (b) what to include in it; and (c) whether to use that image. See WP:RfC for instructions. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree. This isn't a content dispute, where an RfC might be appropriate, but a question of policy. Regardless of the existence or otherwise of this supposed 'ethnicity', the infobox contains unsourced statements about living persons, which can never be agreed to by RfC, consensus, or other methods. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
As there seem to be several issues (title, infobox, image), it would make sense to formulate an RfC that would deal with them all, particularly whether an image is appropriate here as in European Australian, or whether there's something disputed about the category that makes such an image problematic. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the point I've raised about unsourced content. RfCs are irrelevant here: Wikipedia should not include unsourced assertions about living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AndyTheGrump, 26 January 2011

{{edit protected}} The contested infobox currently contains unsourced illustrations and captions assigning an 'ethnicity' to living persons, clearly violating WP:BLP and WP:V. Can I ask that at minimum this breach of policy be dealt with by the prompt removal of these items?

I realise that it is normal to seek consensus for edits to protected articles, but there can be no 'consensus' to violate policy, and therefore such discussion is unnecessary AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. Unless there are citations for these people referring to them as White Argentinians they should not be in the infobox labeled as such. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Please be more specific: are you requesting to remove the image, or the list of names, or just the caption? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it Andy is wanting this edit - which removed the whole lot for these reasons - as violation of WP:BLP, WP:V. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of the image (and the accompanying caption giving names) contravenes WP:V and WP:BLP as it is unsourced. Consensus is not required to correct a violation of policy. The remaining issues over the infobox might just be described as a 'content dispute' (e.g. whether an unsourced synthesis is a valid reason to include it), but 'consensus' cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups is clearly relevant to this debate too. It raises the interesting point that selection of individuals to represent an ethnicity probably constitutes WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Note As page protection has now been discontinued, I have removed the image, and the accompanying captions. Should any person reinsert the unsourced image etc, I will consider posting a complaint at WP:AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Simon Schwartzman article, and ethnicity in Argentina

After repeated requests over some months, an editor (Pablozeta) has at last actually found a source which directly discusses the supposed topic of this article, e.g. 'white Argentine' ethnicity. The article in question is Étnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación by Simon Schwartzman.[4] Given that Schwartzman is a respected social scientist, and the article is sourced to his website, I think for now at least we can assume it is WP:RS. There are however concerns over this article. Firstly, it isn't specifically about Argentina, but about Latin America in general, and secondly it is in Spanish, which to a hopeless monoglot like myself makes things difficult - any disputes about meaning may need an uninvolved third party to arbitrate.

Given these provisos, the article does actually contain a useful table giving IDENTIFICACIÓN ÉTNICA SEGÚN PAÍS, which Google Translate renders as ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION BY COUNTRY - the relevant figures for Argentina are as follows (presumably percentages):

Blanco (White) 63
Negro (Black) 1
Indígena (Indigenous) 1
Mezcla de blanco con negro (Mixture of white and black) 8
Mezcla de blanco con indígena (Mixture of white and indigenous) 9
Mezcla de negro con indígena (Mixture of black and indigenous) 0
Mezcla de todo (Mixture of all) 16
No sabe, no contesta (Don't know) 3

The table seems to be sourced from ECosociAL-2007, a survey that asked: " “Pensando ahora en términos de la raza a la que pertenece, ¿cómo se siente Ud., blanco, negro, indígena o una mezcla de ellos? ¿Y cómo definiría Ud. a su cónyuge (esposo/a o conviviente) actual?", which Google translates as "Thinking now in terms of the race they belong, how do you feel white black, Indian or a mixture thereof? And how would you define your spouse (spouse or partner) today?" It is worth noting that this question isn't an open one about ethnicity, but one giving only broad categories. Nevertheless, it at least addresses a central question regarding our article, i.e. what proportion of the Argentinian population would identify themselves as 'white'? My initial reaction is how much lower the figure (63%) is than other figures for the supposed 'white' proportion of the Argentinian population given in our article - raising obvious doubts as to whether they should be cited at all.

There is also the issue as to whether the survey provides evidence for a 'white Argentine' ethnicity as being a generally-accepted concept. I think that this is certainly untrue, as it gave broad categories, and then asked about which one people felt they belonged to. A survey actually attempting to understand ethnicity specifically in the Argentinian context would presumably have to allow for a much greater number of possibilities, especially given the significant proportion of the population descended from recent immigrants.

It is possible that the Schwartzman article contains more of relevance to the topic, but I think I'd best leave that to Spanish speakers to find.

Given the issues raised by the article, I'd be interested to see comments from others. Over to you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"White Argentine" not a distinct group

Hi all. While there is no dispute that there is (or was) such a thing as a "White Argentine", I can see no evidence in this article of "White Argentine" being a concept deeper or more significant than the ordinary English meanings of the words "white (ethnicity)" and "Argentine" combined together. The article offers no evidence that White Argentines have a distinct and unique culture, community, or political presence that's distinct from that of "whites" elsewhere in the world. It seems that the information in this article would be more appropriately dealt with at "History of Argentinia" or other general Argentinan articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Or one could say (perhaps of more relevance, given the data from the Schwartzman article above), that 'the article offers no evidence that "white Argentines" have a distinct and unique culture, community, or political presence that is distinct from that of "non-white Argentines".' It isn't an ethnicity, but a synthesis constructed to reinforce a particular POV. I think the Schwartzman article has more or less proved the point. The population of Argentina is descended from diverse ancestry, as the historical record and genetic research both indicate, with the largest contribution coming from Europe. By and large, the people of Argentina seem to be well aware of this, and see their ethnicity in those terms. For all the cherry-picked citations about 'white Argentines', we have no real evidence of "whiteness" being significant in a specifically Argentinian context - no evidence that 'white Argentines' constitute an ethnicity as such, rather than the intersection of two broad categories - 'white' and 'Argentine'. Given that 'whiteness' is a social construct, and perhaps not even a particularly relevant one in this context, the fact that this article is a synthesis becomes clear. On that basis, I think the best course is to consider deletion. There may be something in the article that might be of use to other articles, but frankly I can't see the benefit of trying to merge this with any specific one. I'll wait for further comments, but I'm inclined to think that AfD is the way to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE DELETION OF THIS ARTICLE. I'm searching for more sources all the time, and in the same way that Simon Schwartzmann's study Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, appeared, more sources come out in time. I'm in the process of buying a copy of Sociología Argentina, a book written by José Ingenieros who explained the process of formation and supported the existence of such ethnic group.
Here I provide links to fore-sights and citations where the phrase "argentino blanco" (white argentine) appears in several books or publications in both Spanish and English language, and they speak of all the Argentines of predominantly European descent. The phrase in not used now in Argentine websites in Spanish for reasons of "political correction". In the last years there has been a movement pro-indigenist in Argentina that has caused the phrase argentinos blancos to be considered racist, and that's why it is avoided by many and replaced by argentinos descendientes de europeos or other equivalents.
Argentina: Land of the Vanishing Blacks. by Era Bell Thompson. Ebony Magazine. October 1973.</ref>
Los wichí en las fronteras de la civilización: capitalismo, violencia y shamanismo en el Chaco Argentino. Una aproximación etnográfica. written by Javier Rodríguez Mir. Página 24. Editorial Abya Yala. “Brasil se transformó en un país marcadamente blanco, mestizo y negro, mientras que Argentina se volvió un país eminentemente blanco. ... Las diferencias en el modo de representar la pertenencia al Estado-nación, impulsados por sus respectivas elites, está claramente presente en las distintas imágenes homogeneizadoras que cada identidad nacional proyecta; en Brasil se realizó a través de la imagen de una democracia racial, formada por blancos negros e indios, mientras en Argentina se ha realizado bajo la imagen del "crisol de las razas", formada por la composición de muchos argentinos blancos europeos. ...”
Argentina en marcha, Volumen 1. Comisión Nacional de Cooperación Intelectual. 1947. “Para 1826 se admiten 630.000 almas, así repartidas, según Ingenieros: Blancos extranjeros 5.000, Blancos argentinos 8.000, Indios 132.000, Mestizos 400.000, Negros…”
Folclore en las grandes ciudades: arte popular, identidad y cultura. written by Alicia Martín. Páginas 77 y 80.
Our Good Neighbor Hurdle. By John W. White. Page 168.
Crisis and hope in Latin America: an evangelical perspective. Chapter “The Races of Latin America”, page 23. Written by Emilio Antonio Núñez C.,William David Taylor. William Carey Library. 1996. “The population of Argentina, for example, is 90 percent European in origin, whereas that of Paraguay, is Guarani Indian in about the same proportion… Here are white Argentines and black Venezuelans who speak the language of Castile;… ”
Embodying Argentina: body, space and nation in 19th century narrative. Escrito por Nancy Hanway. Chapter 5, The Injured Body. Page 170.
Revista de Filosofía. Vol. 14 , Parte 2. 1921. “Y aquí conviene observar que "argentino blanco" no designa una aproximación, sino que quiere decir lo que expresa literalmente, "argentinos blancos" puros, sin mezcla, de ascendencia directamente europea. Sin la "color-line",…”
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Nº 63-65. 1952. “... se levantó una Argentina sin indios y sin gauchos, con argentinos blancos, nacidos de inmigrantes europeos,…”
“los argentinos blancos que sentimos la necesidad de llamarnos hispano-argentinos para que no se nos confunda con cualquier otro producto de mestizaje blanco, los que somos auténticamente argentinos por los cuatro costados,” El Antisemitismo en la Argentina. Leonardo Senkman. 1989.
Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana. RILI: volumen 5, Nº 9-10. Escrito por Klaus Zimmerman y Armin Schwegler. 2007.

“…. Hasta ahora hemos analizado cómo los hablantes han construido un límite entre argentinos 'blancos' e inmigrantes ... cómo una argentina con antepasados indígenas construye los argentinos como un grupo exclusivamente blanco. ...”

Furthermore, here there are several international sources that assess the percentage of "Whites/Europeans" in Argentina in at least 85% of the total population. The information is cited under the label "ETHNIC GROUPS", and they speak of "White/European" or "Criollo" Argentines, not of Italo-argentines, Spanish-Argentines, etc. separately. The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina, World Statesmen.org: Argentina Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups., Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook..

--Pablozeta (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As yet, I'm still waiting to see what others think about deletion: unlike you, I've not gone around trying to drum up support, and I was hoping to at least get a considered response first. As for 'more sources', frankly I'm getting fed up with this argument. You have been saying the same thing for months, but never seem to actually discuss the real issue here, which is the extent that 'white Argentine' is actually considered to be an ethnicity by Argentines. The Schwartzman article at least gives us some real data, though it doesn't actually resolve the issue, as the question asked was expressed in very broad terms. Still, as a hypothetical proposal, would you accept his data: that 63% of Argentines 'feel white' when asked? Would you now accept that this is the most valid statistic to use in 'infoboxes' etc? Given that the data seems to be derived from a properly-conducted survey, unlike some of the other figures quoted, will you not accept that an impartial article on Argentinian ethnicity should reflect the widely-differing interpretations of 'racial'/ethnic identity demonstrated by the survey, rather than insist that 'white Argentine' was somehow an undisputed ethnicity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm again surprised of how much time you spend keeping track of my moves. I see my actions annoy you. If I'm so wrong here, why are so interested in what I do?--Pablozeta (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It takes little effort to put a talk page on a watchlist. Any chance of actually answering the questions I've asked above? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, thank you all for the responses, but nothing said above has made me reconsider my opinion at the top of this section. I still believe this article does not address a notable topic, and represents an invalid content fork from other related articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Am agree with deletion. One thing is to say the majority of Argentines are "white" or have European origins (as highlighted in the article Ethnography of Argentina), but quite another to argue that "White Argentine" is a separate ethnic group. In fact, there hasn't been one valid source that indicates "White Argentine" is a recognized ethnic group in Argentina. The article just repeats information already contained in others (Ethnography of Argentina and Immigration to Argentina), incorporating the hypothesis of the existence of White Argentine as an ethnic group, but that is original research. --GiovBag (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

White Argentines are a very distinct group

1) First of all, I don't have to prove the existance of the White Argentines, you have to prove that they don't exist. So far, none of you has been able to deny the impact of White/European immigration on Argentina's both culture and ethnography. Furthermore, none of you is Argentinian and claim that you know the reality of my country better than I do. Once you had talked with other Argentines and you had been told that reality in Argentina is different, you may debate the topic again.

2) Let's revise the definition of ethnic group. A simple definition that we may all agree on is this: "a human community defined by racial, linguistic, cultural, etc. affinities" [5]. Is that definition all right with you?

3) Let's analize the parts of that definition to see if White Argentines fit in them.

a) Racial affinity. White Argentines are mostly of European ancestry, and a few are from the Middle East (Syria, Lebanon and Armenia, not Turkey) so they share the same Caucasian phenotype (generally light skin, although some of Mediterranean phenotype may be trigueños, blue/green/brown eyes, blonde/fair/dark brown hair, 90º facial angle, thin lips, not-protruding cheek bones, if you want me to define "Caucasian phenotype"). This is why I reject the change of name to "Argentines of European descent" because Argentine Mestizos have European ancestry too (50% European, 50% Amerindian), but they haven't got Caucasian phenotype. I also consider White Argentines those people who may have a little Amerindian admixture (less than 1/8), and also have Caucasian phenotype.
b) Linguistic affinity. White Argentines nowadays speak predominantly Rioplatense Spanish; most have lost partially or entirely fluency with the mother tongue of their European/Middle Eastern ancestors. Only in a few cases of ethnic endogamy, they have been able to retain Italian, English or German as their domestic language, and restricted themselves to use at home or in their specific ethinicity's festival. Amerindian Argentines and Afro-Argentines also speak the same variety of Spanish, but because of the policies of "Criollización" and standardization implemented by the Argentine state in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; but still they don't hqave the same racial origin. To know more about this process, read Chamosa's study on the Myth of White Argentina, which link is still included in the article.
c) Cultural affinity. White Argentines today share all the same culture, with little pecularities within each ethnicity. Nowadays any Spanish Argentine housewife cooks gnocchi or ravioli at home, and any Italo-Argentine eats croissants (they are apparently German in origin), and today any Argentine takes part in Saint Patrick's festivity (not only the Irish) or in the Oktoberfest (not only the Germans). Mestizos, Amerindians and Afro-Argentines may partially share that same culture, but because this culture has became mainstream, and not because they inherited it directly from their ancestors. Nevertheless, even when they may share cultural and linguistic affinity with White Argentines, they lack racial affinity.
d) Religious affinity. Just in case, I give you one more affinity. White Argentines are by far predominantly Christians (Catholic, Protestant or Oxthodox) an only a few minorities are Jews or Muslims.

4) The reason why you may run a search of "White Argentine" or "Argentinos blancos" in Internet and not find many results is that the word "blanco" has been mostly left out in Spanish language sites because of political correctness so to avoid any racist connotation. A search in Google books will give the links I provided above, in both Spanish and English. Try "Argentines of European ancestry" or any other equivalent and you´ll find lots of links.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • No, you do have to prove they exist, per WP:N and per the impossibility of proving a negative. You need to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources of a group well known as "White Argentines" that have a distinct and unique significance above that conveyed by the existing articles on white, white people and Argentina. This is an encyclopaedia, not a research site - we're not interested in the truth, only in what people have reported as the truth, and there's no reports of "White Argentinians" sufficient to found an article that doesn't replicate existing content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Pablo. We don't have to do prove nothing. Understand one thing: No one has doubted there are many Argentines of European origin, the point is there is no evidence of the existence of a recognized ethnic group, called "White Argentine". For example, in the points about Linguistic affinity, Cultural affinity and Religious affinity, you are talking in ambiguous way about the whole country. Not only this hypothetical ethnic group. All of you speak Rioplatense Spanish and have the same culture, most of you are Christians, even the "cabecitas negras", "mestizos", "criollos" and even Amerindians. What is the point? --GiovBag (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rioplatense Spanish was formed by the heavy influence of the Italian immigrants, especially those from Southern Italy. Most of Argentina's culture was brought and formed by the Criollos (unmixed children of Spaniards born in the Americas) first, and the other European immigrants later; I already said that Mestizos shared part of that culture, but because that White culture is mainstream nowadays, not because Mestizos created it or inherited it from ther ancestors. Finally, you have nothing to retaliate about Racial affinity. Mestizos/Amerindios and Afro-Argentines haven't got Caucasian phenotype -I already described it above-, and that's it.--Pablozeta (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason nobody has said anything about what you wrote about 'racial affinity' is because it is utter crap. Ethnicity isn't based around pseudoscientific claptrap about 'phenotypes', but instead based on peoples perceptions of themselves. As for the garbage you wrote about '50%' this and '1/8' that, this is nothing but your opinion. Please don't pollute the talk page with any more of this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I find it interesting that the Spanish-Argentine housewife cooks ravioli, the Italo-Argentine eats Croissants, and, apparently, the generic "White Argentine" goes to the Oktoberfest, all as part of their cultural heritage, but "non-white" Argentines, doing the same thing, do it only because it's "mainstream". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and drop all PC and tell it like it is: you're a white argentine if you fulfil both of these requirements: a)light skin b)you talk, act, live, like white people do; i.e., you don't talk, act or live like a lower class mestizo. for the most part, skin colour and social class/personality are bound together, and you would be hard pressed to find mestizos listening to mozart, playing golf, speaking english or whites committing petty theft, driving babies around in motorcycles (without a helmet to top it all off), illegally squatting. If you belong to higher classes, you are invariably white, and you identify yourself with, and stick to, others like you. That is why they are a distinct group. Now you have more information to decide.Imnotpc (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, not the dubious random assertions of contributors. It is interesting that you bring up class though, and I dare say there may be an element of truth to it (not that we can use it in the article). If we could find a proper source that said the same thing, it would actually demolish the central premise of the article though: that the supposed 'white Argentine' ethnicity actually correlates with descent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This article it's ok, but is more interesting to know the inmigration to Argentina. In Europe and Asia no white people all population, for example, in Calabria, Sicilia, Malta, Andalusia, Murcia, Valencia or Southem Portugal the people is more dark that other countries in Europe, also it's the same in Jordania, Lebanon, Turkey and Siria.

The firts habitants in Argentina was indigenous people, the natives are living in other provinces near to Chile, Boliva, Paraguay and central provinces, no mestizos, they are native people as soon as in Humahuaca, Jujuy. Argentina no is only Buenos Aires, Santa Fe and Córdoba --Marrovi (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Marrovi, you are right is very interesting to know the immigration to Argentina (and to all Latin America), see: Immigration to Argentina. Here the problem is: there is no evidence to consider White Argentine as an distint Ethnic group. It's no a problem about how dark is population, it's about ethnicity. By the way, in Southern Italy (Sicily, Campania, Calabria and Apulia) there are a lot of people with blond hair, light skin and blue eyes, and they feel themselves as descendants of the Normans who conquered the area in the Middle Ages. Maybe you don't knew it.--GiovBag (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Please keep this forum about improving white Argentines not about how light or dark one may or may not people it is probably irrelevant to what the article is about..remember this is not a general forum about his or hers opinion or stereotype on how a population may appear exactly in phenotype... white is a broad generalized ethnic/racial classification...lets keep it to improving the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection again

As the reverting continues, I've protected for three days following a request from Sherlock on my talk page, which should be long enough to see it through the AfD. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

[copied from SV talk]:

Slim Virgin:

You once placed an edit freeze on White Argentine to prevent vandalism such as the kind GiovBag has resumed. Unable to persuade anyone that the article unnoteworthy, he's resorted to vandalism. A simple look will show that he simply reverts the page to a previous version with numerous grammar problems and missing references, and is not interested in adding to or improving the page at all.

I really hate wasting all my Wiki-time on this, and can't wait until the board rules on this one way or another. If you'd please reinsert the protection padlock in the meantime, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've protected for three days; hopefully the AfD will be decided by then. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask you to take a look at the note I placed on Sherlock4000's talk page, asking him why he persisted in reverting the article improperly, disrupting the edit history, and removing edits, references etc, without any explanation, and why he insists on inserting an infobox with an image and captions that clearly violates WP:V and WP:BLP policy, in that it contains entirely unreferenced images of living persons: User_talk:Sherlock4000#The_infobox_in_the_White_Argentine_article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also point out that Sherlock4000's repeated references to others as 'vandals' in relation to a content dispute is at minimum a breach of WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've copied above the posts from my talk page. I think people should wait for the AfD to close. If the article's kept, consider filing an RfC on the issues in dispute to attract uninvolved input. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
An RfC is unnecessary where a clear violation of policy is being removed. The images in the infobox are entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In the unlikely event of this article not being deleted

I wish to make clear that, in the unlikely event of this article not being deleted, I fully intend to ensure that the persistent violations of WP:V, WP:BLP etc that have occurred will be rigorously pursued. There is no room on Wikipedia for unsourced assertions of 'ethnicity', of dubious racial stereotyping, and other POV-pushing nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Personally in the event that it's kept I'm going to take it as a sign that the community just isn't worried, and leave the page the hell alone. It'll either stay the same (ie remain in the community-approved state that passed the AfD) or get worse (ie justify another run at AfD with more ammunition under our belt). There's better places on Wikipedia to spend time and effort. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You could be right. I doubt the article gets much attention from anyone but the POV-pushers: Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina doesn't seem to think the article merits mention on their 'Recognized content' list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Very smart

Congratulations, you are very smart, but this [6] is a Promotional Draft. Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a simple solution to this: add the {{NOINDEX}} template to the article, and ensure that no attempt to link the article from main space is made. I'll do the first myself, as this is clearly uncontroversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A reminder regarding BLP policy and claims of ethnicity

I'd like to remind those editing this article that (a) WP:BLP policy applies in user space, as well as main article space, and (b) that any claims that individuals are of a particular ethnicity will need to be sourced. Obviously, as a work-in-progress, it isn't reasonable to expect this to be done immediately, but it will become more of an issue over time, and I'd remind you that any contentious claims regarding living persons may be removed immediately, by any editor.

I'd also point out that if the article is going to claim that 'Argentines of European descent' constitute an ethnic group, proper sourcing will again be required - 'descent' and 'ethnicity' are not necessarily the same thing according to sociological theory, and for an ethnicity to be valid, it has to be self-ascribed by a significant proportion of the members of the supposed group. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What does 'of European descent' mean?

As the article notes: "Recent genetic studies concluded in 2005 have shown that a significant portion of the population has varying degrees of Amerindian and to a lesser extent African ancestry...". and yet the table states that "82.9% — 86.4% of total Argentine population" are "Argentines of European descent". This leads to the obvious question. Who is this article about? Is it about (a) Argentines solely of European descent, (b) Argentines with any European ancestry, or (c), some other category - and if so, what are the criteria for inclusion? It seems to me that unless this is made clear, the article cannot make assertions about numbers, nor about whether person X is or is not in fact an 'Argentine of European descent'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Immigrants. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Fifth generation descendants of immigrants are no longer immigrants, they are descendants of immigrants. This article is about European immigration to Argentina and its descendants, which is a sizable population. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the choice is obvious, Andy, as you state above: Argentines of any European descent are considered here. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, you need to make it clear in the article. You will also need to provide evidence that the sources you use for percentages etc are using the same criteria, and ensure that any article sections reflect this: i.e. by not suggesting that 'European descent' implies solely (or even majority) 'European ancestry'. As it stands, the article is anything but clear on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that's a constructive comment. But, may I ask you, why it is of such importance to know the degree of European ancestry of the Argentine people? It is most probable that there is no study at all identifying how many Argentines have 100% Euro ancestry, how many have 85%, 75%, 65%, 50% or 25%. Again, is that important at all for the sake of this article, apart from being very interesting and worth an entire section in here? I don't think so, but I wish to know what do you think about it.
The sources establish how many Argentines are of European descent. As long as they are reliable according to WP, that's fine for the sake of the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the 'Genetic research' research' section has a great deal to say on this subject (though it could be better worded - this isn't an easy subject to explain in simple terms). The reason it matters is that the article seems to be suggesting that 'European Argentines' constitute a well-defined group, whereas the evidence suggests they don't - and on that basis, you cannot make assertions about numbers, membership etc without a lot more evidence - and frankly, I doubt that it exists. In any case, if it doesn't matter whether someone is 25% or 75% 'European', then one needs to ask why it matters at all? There is no question that the genetic makeup of Argentina is largely 'European', and likewise, there is a very strong 'European' influence on Argentinian culture, but these are statements about the population as a whole, and are not necessarily indicative of relevance to individuals - one again, I think this article may be falling into the trap of confusing ethnicity with descent. Finally, don't assume that a source can be 'reliable' in the abstract - Wikipedia policy makes it clear that one needs to look at the source, and the usage of the source, to assert the reliability of a particular citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The influence of European culture in Argentina is so strong precisely because of the sheer magnitude of the European descency. Surely the European cultural influence goes far beyond the Euro-descendants, affecting (virtually) the whole population, but you have to bear in mind there are other -distinct- cultural influences in Argentina, and that there are other distinct ethnicities in the country. So yes, we are not talking about a defined ethnic or cultural "minority", but about a large overwhelming ethnic and cultural "majority". From an analytic point of view, to better understand how this major influence on Argentine culture interacted with other elements, it is important to consider it alone. Euro culture is not identical to Argentine culture, but it is a major influence. Likewise, Euro population is not Argentine population, but it is a major component of it. That's why this article is important.
As for the genetic section, or any other section of the article, no doubt it can be indefinitely improved. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

In all this time some users, led by Pablozeta, acting with the sole purpose to impose on wikipedia their point of view, that the majority of Argentines are "white" and they are "some kind" of particular and distinctive ethnic group. According to their archaic and racialist way of understand the humankind, because they belive in the deprecated term "race" to describe human beings (please, read this [7]. They have made a systematic campaign, have developed strategies, have sought allies and they have identified enemies. All to achieve their purpose: The recognition of the Argentines as White European people. Unfortunately to make it, they don't listen reasons and they are not interested in improving wikipedia. For them, Wikipedia is only a platform to disseminate their point of views, as many other site, even Metapedia.

Of course there is no problem in doing an article on European immigration in Argentina, considering the huge volume of Europeans who emigrated to this country. And may also include information on its impact on culture, cuisine, language, customs, etc. But do it well, serious and neutrally, not for other purposes. Don't look for tricks or stratagems to spread your ideas. Pablozeta was warned that Joshua Project isn't a valid source, however, he insists on using it. Why?

If you are really interested in the article and worried about the encyclopedia, I gladly give you directions for improvement. For instance, a) change the title: a name as "Argentines of European descent" is so useful as saying "Germans with blond hair". For an encyclopedia the important thing is the process by which millions of Europeans came to Argentina, not the fact that you are of European descent. b) Eliminates the "usage of the term", immigration is not a term, is a historical process. c) Put the history in the first place. d) Eliminates the geographical distribution, is useless to know that Europeans arrived, all over the country. When you talk to each community, group or migratory stream, you can point where they settled. e) In the influences on Argentine culture talk about food, customs, religion or language, sport is the less important thing, and a list of sportmen is useless. Don't talk so much about people of this or that country, but as this or that music, food or habit, influenced the Argentinian culture. Do you understand the difference?. --GiovBag (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

1) I won't take as personal anything you said, although you said so much in violation of WP:AGF. Even to the point of stating that some editors, like me, are supposed to share the personal views or objectives of other editors, which is not the case. I care about Wikipedia, and I'm contributing to this discussion on that basis. Also, I won't take into consideration anything you've said about pablozeta or other editors, because that is not relevant for the improvement of this article. Please, take all that to the talk pages or the pertaining boards and forums.
2) The European immigration to Argentina surely deserves an article, as the cultural and demographic contribution of those immigrants are most relevant to understand the Argentine culture and population. We agree on that. But immigrants influence in culture and population was mostly the result of its descendency and of a lengthy process of aculturation, and the same can be said of its lasting and pervading influence. So, to have the European influence in Argentina properly considered, we have to refer to immigration and its descendant population. In other words, you cannot explain the Euro influence in Argentina only through the immigration process.
3) I welcome your interest in the developement of this article, as the continuing process of collective edition and discussion is the way we should work here in WP. Not by challenging and mutilating everything anybody else does out of conviction, investigation and hard work. To your points: a) The title is fine as long as the article deals with the Euro descendant population of Argentina; in this perspective, the migratory process is a fundamental topic, but not the main one, b) "usage of the term" explains the relation between the "european descent" denomination and others denominations, such as "Criollo", or distinguishing it from some of its component collectivities, such as "Spanish Argentine"; c) History is a fundamental topic, but not the main one, d) It is not irrelevant the distribution of the Euro population or its descendants, as long as it pretty much explains the varying influence of euro culture through the country. You know, Argentina is a vast and very diverse country, e) I agree with you in that the lists are not that important, regarding the relevance of sports vis à vis other cultural manifestations, I'm not so sure why it should be considered a less important thing. In any case, this can be further discussed.
4) I'll welcome any more discussion about the article, anytime. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1) You do it well, don't take it personally, because I do not talk about you. However, despite the fact that you consider correct make an article about "White Argentine" or "Argentine of European descent", you can also notice that for some people the recognition of the whiteness is a personal battle.
2) In the point 2 you give the reason to change the name of the article, to European immigration to Argentina, because it is possible explain the Euro influence in Argentina, in the section influence on Argentine culture. In fact the important thing is that there was a great wave of immigration to Argentina. Not the fact that some of you are of European descent.
3) Even keeping the title, the section: Use of the term is useless, because "Argentine of European descent" is not a term, i just a category.
4) I never said the history is the main topic. I just said: Put the history in the first place, to ordering the information, contextualizing the phenomenon. Then you can proceed with a statistical section that says the volume of such migration and estimates of descendants.
5) You are right, is important the distribution of the immigrant population or its descendants. But this paragraphs, such as it is written, is useless. It would be more interesting in the history show where the different communities were settling.
6) I don't deny the sport is important, but what really matters is the influence of European cultures in the development of Argentine culture and sport. Not if an athlete or singer was of European origin. Do you understand the difference?
Finally, "Argentine of European descent" is not a social group, in the sociological sense of the term, is just a category to grouping different communities: Italian Argentine, Spanish Argentine, Basque Argentine, French Argentine, German Argentine, Irish Argentine, Polish Argentine, Ukrainian Argentine, Croatian Argentine, Czechs in Argentina, Argentine Jew, Russians in Argentina, Armenian Argentine, Swedish Argentine, Swiss Argentine, Slovene Argentines, Scottish Argentine, English Argentine, Greeks in Argentina, Hungarians in Argentina and Montenegrin Argentine. Those communities already have their own articles, making unnecessary one article that put it all together.
Saluti.--GiovBag (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


I want to make clear 2 things:
1) I had plans to add sections on the European influence on Argentina´s cuisine, language, literature and architecture (and maybe some more) when GiovBag and Andy began to change the article at will. So, most of my time available for WP -I have two jobs; and a wife, two sons and a step-daughter to care for- was wasted arguing with the aforementioned users and not improving the article. When it was placed in AfD -and eventually deleted- I abandoned any intention of adding such sections. Now that it is back, I offer my help and assistance to expand and improve the article by co-writting the sections.
2) Argentines of European descent is not a synthesis article. It is neccesary because during the aluvial process of immigration, most colectividades practiced ethnic endogamy during the first and second generations of settlement; Italian men and women intermingled within their own community, and so did the Spaniards, the Irish, the Germans. But from the third generation onwards, the European-descended Argentines intermingled outside their own ethnicities, creating after four -or more- generations this melée of European ethnicites that Argentina is today Read this article, especially the fifth paragraph. As I said a long time ago in this discussion page, I have four different European ancestries: Italian, French, Basque and Spanish. What am I? I'm an Argentine of European descent, and many of my countrymen are in the same situation; they're not only Italo-argentines, or only German-argentines, or else, they're a mixture or two, three, four European ethnicities. Furthermore, my culture is a mixture of all my European heritage; and this culture has become mainstream in Argentina, and it has been adopted even by those Argentines who do not have European descent.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on immigration needs to be a separate article all together. The title is already assigned, so feel free to develop an article there. But note that what the title of the current article refers to is not immigrants at all, but rather Euro-Americans, or rather, Euro-Argentinians. Completely different topics, and there's no need to fight over whether to rename/reorganize THIS page when the other page is readily available. You can both have your articles. Have fun. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not copy-paste old versions when reverting - this breaches copyright

All contributors need to be aware that the proper tools must be used when reverting articles, as a copy-paste from an earlier version invalidates the edit history, and thus constitutes a breach of the copyright of those contributors who's work is copied. If people persist in doing this, I will raise the issue elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding about copyright, I explained Andy at his talk page. Copy and Paste is only wrong from a page to the other, there is no problem in doing so within a same page. MBelgrano (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that you are incorrect, and have asked for clarification here: Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copy-pasting_an_old_version_of_an_article.2C_rather_than_reverting_using_the_normal_tools. Can anyone explain what is wrong with using the proper tool for this in any case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
As it says, reverting multiple editions at once can only be done with a special gadget installed. This is done very frequently, most vandals vandalize articles many times if not caught right away, and reverting an article to a previous edition does not seem to be a copyright problem at all. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia says nothing about that case.
Have in mind that there is already an edit warring about those sections. Mixing a copyright technicality in the middle of it will only make problems worse MBelgrano (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, I'd say that since there has only been one reply to my question, it is still not settled. As for comments about 'vandalism' and 'edit warring', I have not been involved - I made a single revert as my interpretation was that Pablozeta's revision was incorrectly done. I'd suggest that it would be better for everyone to discuss the article properly here, rather than making offensive remarks on user pages, as some contributors are doing [8], and generally behaving in an uncooperative manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes

Every single change is explained first. Nobody has presented a reason to justify its reversion. If the article is about the European immigration in Argentina, has encyclopedic value, considering the volume of inmigranción in Argentina. If, however, trying to "invent " an ethnic group called "Argentine of European descent", is nothing more than repeat the same problem of deleted article "White Argentine". --GiovBag (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at talk page. This is YOUR opinion, and you haven't gained consensus yet. So, please stop WP:edit warring. WP is a collaborative effort, and each disputed changes is to be discussed for consensus. Be careful next time with WP:3RR, you should be blocked by now. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I let me go, because I am impulsive. But, do you understand that repeating a deleted article with new name has no future? The main reason to delete the article, is not that people doubt the huge importance of European immigration in Argentina. But was to "invent" an ethnic group not recognized by any valid source. In this case we are doing the same.----GiovBag (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is of no importance. You are vandalizing the article by Edit Warring. Take the issue to the talk page or wherever you think it is necessary, but STOP EDIT WARRING NOW, man! Right or wrong, YOU HAVE NO CONSENSUS, ok? --IANVS (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, it is important. Am not vandalizing the article, am just neutralize it. But, you are right, I fell into an edit war. But, this edit war we did it both, not only me. No one refuted any of my comments, no one presented any valid argument. I was only courageous and tried to neutralize an article.--GiovBag (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Corageous and way beyond the WP rules, you know. And pretty cynical, warning me of 3RR after your half a dozen reverts since yesterday. You are a true WP hero, you know?. Try to discuss and gain consensus, instead of "neutralizing" something only you think it has to be "neutralized". See you after the blocks (mine and yours, you know). --IANVS (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact YOU BOTH NEED TO STOP NOW! This is getting out of hand: discuss and stop reverting each other! I've requested full protection (temporary) to put a temporary stop on this. Jarkeld (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why you tell me that I'm cynical?. I break a rule (like you) because I'm tired of the lack of intellectual honesty. If they punish me, they're right: I did not know to stay calm and I fell into a edit war. You all have made ​​and defended the replica of a deleted article, with a new name. Naively, I offered to neutralize and improve it, changing of course the reason because it was deleted: by trying to invent the existence of an ethnic group. But I found the obstinate resistance of group of users, wich without arguing reverted me over and over again. Hence, the blood went to my head and this was out of hand. But you don't accuse me cynical, when here there are users acting in concert, to achieve recognition of Argentina as a country in Europe. You don't want to find consensus, you only want to impose your position without discurtir reasons.--GiovBag (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Be all the victym and martyr you want to be. The discussion about "neutrality" was (and is) ongoing just above this thread. You simply jumped on mass edits without gaining consensus at the discussion. Do you think that by just stating your rationale the rest should be convinced by you? Well, don't. It is not that way. You discuss, gain consensus, and then edit. Or, you edit, you are reverted and then you discuss. I think you don't get this. Another thing: the changes should be done little by little, not massive changes, and they ought to be explained. Something you seemed to forget, as well. Now, can we continue to discuss the issue instead of warring. Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no recognized human group called Euro-Argentine White Argentine or Argentine European origin. This is an article about immigration. --GiovBag (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
After comparing this article to White Brazilian, I can see how there's so much discussion of immigration history that the article could be seen as being about immigration. I recommend you follow the example of the Brazilian article and move all the details of the immigration section to European immigration to Argentina and allow the rest of this page to focus on the cultural influence of Europe on Argentina. I would also suggest that you do need to clarify how this article is different from the Culture of Argentina article. With work, you could make this article better than both European Canadian and Mexicans of European descent. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Exist a substantial difference. In Brazil, officially exists (in the census) the term "branco" (white), to categorize the population. That is not the case of Argentina, where don't exist the official category "Argentine white" or "Argentine of European descent". It recognizes the existence of several "communities" (Italo-Argentina, Polish-Argentina, German-Argentina, etc.), but not an "European-Argentine" community. Exist the immigration from many different Europeans peoples to Argentine, but they don't exist one European Argentine community.--95.245.26.143 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Project

One thing is you've gotten that the deleted article White Argentine, has been restored after changing the name and a few cosmetic changes. Even without restore consultation. In fact Pablozeta boasts of having achieved in the Spanish Wikipedia, with anothers "brave argentines who share his point of view" ! [9] El artículo White Argentine fue borrado por el vandalismo de un wikilegalista inglés y un italiano con ínfulas de antropólogo, pero fue restaurado en menos de un mes con nuevo título ( - The article was deleted by the vandalism of an English wiki-legalistic and an Italian with airs of anthropologist, but was restored in less than a month with a new title - ).

But, another very different is to allow you to continue using fraudulent sources. Please see that: [10].--GiovBag (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

'Origin of the immigrants until 1940'

This section seems to lack any proper citations whatsoever. I'd tagged this with a 'full citation needed' template some time ago, but nothing has been done about it. Unless a proper citation can be provided, it will need to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has now added this [11] as the source. The document is not from the Dirección Nacional de Migraciones, and gives no indication of where it got the data from. Given that the document seems to be written for an "8th grade Social Studies program", and may well indeed have sourced the table from Wikipedia, and given that it doesn't provide any support for the notes accompanying the table, we still need to find the original. On this basis, the table is still lacking adequate citation, and will have to be removed if this cannot be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The chart and the section is now properly referenced from the Argentine Dirección Nacional de Migraciones itself, so I remove all the tags.--Pablozeta (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this needs a little more work, but thanks for finding that, Pablozeta. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Galtieri.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Galtieri.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Galtieri.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Percentages

I've edited the minimum percentage of white people in the ethicity infobox because according to the 2010 population census Argentina's population is more than 40,117,000. Being 85% of them white means that there're at least 34,099,000 whites. The right percentage to 31,477,000 whites is 78,4%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samhain-35 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. There is no justification for your edit, and I will revert it, though the sources cited don't reflect more recent data, which suggests that a decreasing number of Argentinians identify as 'white' -the infobox should probably reflect this more recent data. I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, someone should corroborate the data soon and correct that error because there's something wrong, the percentage OR the number of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samhain-35 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Title is wrong!

it should says Whites Argentines, not "Argentines of European descent"

The words mean two different things. Whites doesn't always mean literally from Europe. As mentioned, it's self classifying. Mixed-raced and much more is taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.246.149 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Argentines of European descent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked Confirmed as correct x 3. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argentines of European descent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentines_of_European_descent/Archive_2&oldid=1112615260"