The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a lot of irrelevant material and repeated argument in this AFD, making it appear to have much more substance than it actually has. No one party is solely responsible for this, but I would ask everyone who made numerous very long posts here to consider the wisdom of doing so in future debates. Now to the meat of the issue: As we all know this is not a vote, but even if it were there is no clear numerical winner, although a slim majority favor deletion. That leaves us with strength of argument. On the "keep" side we have the argument that there are sources that use this term, but as the "delete" proponents point out, the way it is used is inconsistent, and most Argentines apparently do not self-identify as "white" even if they might "feel white" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and this term is not used by other Argentines to refer these persons. There may be some academics who use the term in their studies of race and ethnicity but on the whole it does not seem to be a term with much use in the day-to-day "real" world. It seems there is a real and valid concern that this article consists of a synthesis of information that is not clearly supported by the sources. As the individual subgroups of more well-defined ethnicities already have their own articles there is no sensible target for merging this information or simply redirecting the article. Therefore both consensus and policy would seem to favor deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

White Argentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that "White Argentines" are a distinct group receiving significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Article appears to replicate information in the existing articles white, white people and Argentina and represents an invalid content fork from those articles. (a) This is my first AfD nomination via Twinkle, apologies if it goes wrong, and (b) I am making this nomination following discussion on the article's talk page which may be of interest to commentors, in order to get a wider opinion on the matter. DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is worth noting that this article has been a long-standing subject of often-heared debate, with a great deal of contentious edit-warring and less-than-friendly comments from some participants. This has somewhat distracted editors from the central question: is 'White Argentine' an ethnicity? Nobody is disputing that the population of Argentia is predomenantly descended from European ancestry, and nor are they suggesting that there aren't sources referring to 'white Argentines'. That, however, is not the issue. Ethnicity isn't about genetics, and nor is it about abstract geographical concepts (like 'Europe'). And neither is it about abstract 'racial' concepts (like 'whiteness'). Ethnicity is about how people define themselves. This point has been made time and time again, but all that results is a stream of sources (often dubious, sometimes repeated even after the dubiousness is pointed out) that refer to abstract 'white Argentines' - usually in non-Argentine publications. We are told on the talk page that the term 'white Argentine' isn't used because of 'political correctness', which could possibly be true, but again, it is unsourced. It has become increasingly apparent that at least one pro-White-Argentine-as-an-ethnicity contributor is basing his entire concept of 'whiteness' around a pseudoscientific 'racial' categorisation that utterly ignores the overwhelmoing evidence which shows (in the article itself) that the population Argentina is ethnically diverse, with many (perhaps most, other than those descended from recent European Migrants) having mixed ancestry - descended from a mix of predominantly European migrants with indigenous peoples, and with a further contribution from sub-Saharan Africa. That this supposed 'ethnicity' is a synthesis is further made evident by attempts to include those of Middle-Eastern descent (like President Carlos Menem), while giving no explanation whatsoever why those of say sub-Saharan African descent aren't included in a 'migrant' ethnicity. We are treated to discussions of 'Caucasian phenotypes' without any explanation of their relevance (and without any sources either: nothing new there), and to explanations of how 'Rioplatense Spanish' somehow defines 'white Argentines', though other Argentines seem to have no trouble speaking it. The whole thing is a mess, based on a false premiss. The people of Argentina (all of them) deserve better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends:

This is being pushed by two users who, incredibly, assert that white Argentines do not exist. When pressed, they'll change their argument to say that "the supposed group does not acknowlege themselves as such." I won't dignify the first argument with a response, and the second has been anwered at length by a fellow editor, Pablozeta, who added numerous sources to that effect here (beyond those already in the article). Most white Argentines, indeed, will not refer to themselves as "white" out of both common courtesy and custom, since (as most of these sources state), they typically prefer "European" or "of European descent." Accordingly, I would support having the page moved to "European Argentine" (if the problem is indeed one of semantics, which I doubt since those pushing for deletion won't hear of it).

I should also note that they focus their attacks on the page on white Argentines, when a casual look at most other pages about white communities elsewhere will show that this is among the best referenced and thorough such pages. A volume of sources have been added to those already there, when it is those trying to kill the article who should have been coughing up sources asserting that white (or European) Argentines do not exist!

Let's be clear: I understand the subject of white people may be offensive to some; but Andy's pleas of "political correctness" (to say nothing of his patronizing asides such as "the people of Argentina deserve better") are Orwellian in their denial of patent fact, and I'll only agree to have this article deleted the day all other such articles are. We'd be looking at an incredible double standard, otherwise - and Argentines (and everyone else potentially affected by Andy's PC-for-thee-but-not-for-me attitude) deserve better.

Keep this article, then, until these issues can be reasonably addressed for all similar ones.

Thanks, Sherlock4000 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you're aware, Sherlock4000, how bad that argument is. Applied in general, it would allow nothing on Wikipedia to ever change, pending changes elsewhere. The Wikipedia philosophy is incremental improvement through small local changes, not stasis while awaiting perfect policy. Either this article meets our content policies currently, or it doesn't. (I say it doesn't.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to that, it isn't me that keeps referring to 'political correctness' but Pablozeta. All I've done in regard to that particular concept is to (a) point out that you can't use it as an excuse for not being able to provide evidence, and (b) object to pseudoscientific 'racial' stereotypes, which may be 'politically incorrect', but also happen to be 'factually incorrect' with regards to the Argentinian population - as the article itself shows. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys: Thank you for your response. Your spin on what I said could be debated, except that we're not discussing "improving" the article "through small local changes," are we?

No, of course not. You both are advocating deleting an article wholesale (hence, the title of this thread, right?).

I would, however, like to know why you've chosen to delete the page on white Argentines, when there are so many. This article contains no unsourced assertions, and is in no way dismissive of anyone else. Whether you believe it does or not is no excuse to misrepresent the page, or to push for its deletion without basis or consensus.

In all likelihood, all articles about any ethnic, cultural or religious group are or have been the subject of some argument as to how biased they may or may not be. This article in no way contradicts the existence of white or European Argentines, as Andy would have others believe, and is rich in evidence. I'd venture to say, moreover, that few are as well-sourced or thorough. If Wikipedia abided by Andy's very subjective yardstick that an article is meaningless because he says it is (all evidence and sources be damned), no page on any group of people on God's green earth could ever be written, could it?

I'm sorry you feel this way. It's certainly not mutual.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've debated any number of ethnicity articles and lists, both in the Keep and Delete camps. I'm not working from any master plan; I assess articles as I see them and I make a call based on the merits of the article. There's nothing inherently wrong with ethnicity/nationality intersections (clearly White South Africans would be a topic capable of supporting an article) - it's just that this particular one is bollocks. In the spirit of cooperation I'd appreciate if you could avoid making ad hominem aspersions and concentrate on the merits or otherwise of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly White South Africans would be a topic capable of supporting an article Actually, that's highly debatable and that article should be reviewed as well (along with White Africans of European ancestry). A White South African would work best as a disambig page for actual, documented ethnic groups like Afrikaans Afrikaner. "White South African" is a wording used almost exclusively to separate people of European descent from indigenous South African peoples, and not as a distinct and uniform "peoples". The term may merit an article but there seems to be little evidence that the term also describes an ethnic group. (as is suggested now) Bulldog123 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a good point and Afrikaans Afrikaner is really what I was thinking of, thanks. Though probably not terribly relevant to this discussion. - 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"This article contains no unsourced assertions". Well, considering the number of times Sherlock4000 has reinserted an 'infobox' containing an entirely unsourced montage of supposed 'white Argentinians'. I'd say that was at least questionable. I'd recommend anyone interested in the subject of 'unsourced assertions' to look back into the article history, when it seemed at times to consist of little else. In any case, there is only one 'assertion' that really needs sourcing here: that a significant proportion of those that the article insists are 'white Argentinians' actually self-identify themselves as such when asked to define their ethnicity. We have precisely one source on the subject that, when even limited to the narrowest of categories, shows that only 63% of the population of Argentina "feel white" - not an assertion of ethnicity, but a 'feeling' when given a narrow choice of alternatives.[1] A feeling is of course not an ethnicity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my concern here is not that the article is unverifiable, but rather than it is non-notable, in that none of the sources directly address the term "White Argentine" or describe a definable group of "White Argentines" as having traits or history which are distinct from whites generally, Argentines generally or (say) Spaniards and Portuguese generally. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stronge Delete There might be Italian Argentine, Polish Argentines, French Argentine, Spanish Argentine, German Argentines, etc... but "White Argentine" seems to be a Wikipedia-user-synthesized people and not a people with a distinct cultural, linguistic, or ancestral uniformity (the definition of an "ethnic group"). On a related note, a very similar argument can be given for the "unethnicgroupification." of Multiracial Americans, White Americans, and British Jews, and I would support a review of all those. I mention this to avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. Bulldog123 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Or, to put it in the simplest possible terms, ethnicity isn't an attribute, it is an attitude. In the case of Argentina, I've seen no evidence that 'whiteness' is anything other than the attitude of a narrow minority, possibly with a political agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that minority self-identified as White Argentines then there might be an article in that; the problem is not whether such a minority exists but really that it's not directly addressed through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. The only self-identified 'White Argentines' I have any direct knowledge of are those that have edited the article. There may well be more (in fact I'd be surprised if there weren't), but that doesn't alter the fact that most of the people these 'White Argentines' are claiming also to be 'White Argentines' don't seem to hold the same opinion. Or if they do, no reliable source has yet been provided to show it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these editors are stating their assumptions (Argentines think this or that about themselves), their personal beliefs (ethnicity is an attitude), and willful misrepresentations (no sources were provided), as fact.

They are, furthermore, doing so with a visibly escalating hostility (the narrow group, a minority with an agenda). All this, when, again, this is the only such page being put up on the chopping block when it is, in fact, among the best referenced.

The article has no "agenda" to push, and merely seeks to explain the existence of Argentines of European descent to whomever might like to know (just like any other such article). Your casting aspersions to that effect on those who wrote it and would like to see it around violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia's policies.

Those who would delete this article have nothing to support their need to see this article ditched, other than their own contentions. Be they 63%, 86%, or anywhere in between, the existence of white Argentines has never been debated, and, in fact, is routinely mentioned in reference works, travel and geography magazines, and other media as a defining feature of Argentine society and culture. I'd support its deletion when articles on all such peoples are deleted, as I said earlier, and in the meantime: To anyone with good-faith interest in the subject, this is a well-sourced and informative page, and recaps the experiences of all those communities Bulldog123 mentioned with history, context, as well as opposing viewpoints.

Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & move to European Argentine. I have lived in Argentina for several years on and off and have come across countless people that self identify as European Argentines, many of them have immense knowledge of & pride in their European ancestry. I believe that the majority of this article could easily be reconfigured into an article entitled European Argentine which is a subject that is certainly worthy of an article. It seems that it is the use of the word "White" that is considered a problem here rather than the content (which seems generally pretty good and well sourced from my reading). Attention should also fall on these articles: White Brazilian, White Canadian, White American, White Latin American, White Hispanic & White Mexican. King of the North East 09:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that we already have an Immigration to Argentina article, a Demographics of Argentina article, and individual articles on almost every European migrant group to Argentina (24 in total: White_Argentine#See_also). As for other articles, they are irrelevant, this is an AfD for this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article cites itself: [2] (This is a fake book written by a Wikipedia scraper) I don't believe the citations hold up when the self-citation is removed. The other principal citations are a Christian missionary group and something called worldstatesmen.org, neither of which approach anything like reliability. Shii (tock) 13:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to thank King of the North East (who has lived in Argentina and knows the people well), for joining me in calling for the article's move to "European Argentine," since the word "white" is being used as as straw man by those pushing for the article's deletion. You know, when this business of having the infobox erased started, I said then that the true goal of those doing it was to have the article eliminated wholesale. And here we are. Since one of the pretexts being used is that the page "pushes an agenda," I am sure that all this time is being wasted to - precisely - push an agenda. This is a safe guess because, among other reasons, the ring leader, Andy, cries foul at the supposed lack of sources for the article and for the people given as famous examples of white Argentines, while insisting that the background of others be taken on faith (I agree with Andy's stance in the latter case, but I think it's a damn slight easier to prove someone is a white Argentinian than it is to prove someone is Jewish without sourcing it). Shii is right: the source mentioned (one of over 50) is inadequate, and though it does not contradict volumes of other citations supporting the obvious existence of white (or European) Argentines, I'll replace it for a more respected source. I've notice none of these people who've taken so much umbrage with this article are bringing up the pages about all the other white latin americans. You'll find that they are just as sure and proud of their backgound as white Argentines. Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock4000, do you actually think that when I wrote "...for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody is Jewish unless proven otherwise". I was expecting to be taken seriously? Do you not understand irony? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, it is unnecessary, all information contained in this article, exist in other ones, for instance: Argentine people, Immigration to Argentina, Ethnography of Argentina and Demographics of Argentina. Second, is original research to determine unilaterally the existence of an ethnic group not recognized by any publication, statement or valid source. --GiovBag (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest delete too: White Mexican, White Colombian, White Venezuelan and Peruvian of European descent, for the same reasons. However, in Brazil "white" officially exists as demographic category to classify the population, in consequence the article White Brazilian it must be keep, but could be reviewed and neutralized.--GiovBag (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I thank Sherlock4000 and King of te North for their contributions. Here I provide AGAIN links to fore-sights and citations to prove that "argentino blanco" (white argentine) is a term used to name an ethnic group; it 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 correctness". 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.

In Simon Schwartzmann's study Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, 63% of Argentinian people interview declared themselves as argentinos blancos. I'm also 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.

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 and studies 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 smaller ethncities or colectividades separately, such as Italo-argentines, Spanish-Argentines, etc. 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) 12:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can I remind Pablozeta that this is not the place to endlessly regurgitate the same sources, particularly without first submitting them for proper review as reliable sources first. (or in some cases, after it has already been pointed out that they are not reliable sources). Furthermore this statement "in Simon Schwartzmann's study Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, 63% of Argentinian people interview declared themselves as argentinos blancos" is false. 63% of those polled, when given a narrow choice (white, black, indigenous, or various combinations thereof) stated that they 'felt white'. They were never asked if they 'declared themselves as 'Argentinos blancos' at all. It is this willful over-interpretation of the evidence that lies at the heart of the problems with this article. Data is being gathered from multiple sources (often dubious) to reach a conclusion stated in none of them: that a significant proportion of the Argentine population consider themselves as a part of an ethnic group 'Argentinos blancos'. It is worth noting too that Pablozeta has chosen to use criteria for 'inclusion' drawn from no source whatever to include those of Middle Eastern descent, thereby ruling out the proposal made by some to rename the article 'European Argentines' or similar - We cannot redefine an ethnicity ourselves, and either it includes Middle-Easterners or it doesn't (if of course, it exists at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I toyed with AFDing this article way back when first coming across it. The bottom line is that it is not possible to properly source this as an ethnic group and it mostly just synthesis information. The content is brought together from three other articles. Thist article is basically information on migration into Argentina with a note about use of the term "White Argentine" tacked onto the front. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per - unrecognised ethnic group that is weakly supported in reliable externals. Much of any content worthy of keeping is already in other articles, such as Immigration to Argentina, Ethnography of Argentina etc, etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% concur with User:GiovBag. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh no. You cannot delete the article when people have presented sources that validate the article.Secret killer (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
• It's acknowledged by both sides here that there are reliable sources that speak of White Argentines.
• Since reliable sources consider this group to number tens of millions of people and to compose a majority of the Argentine people, the group is clearly notable.
• Specific mention of "argentinos blancos" (lit. "White Argentines") is made by multiple sources here: [3]. Mention of "Argentina's white population" is made in this book. I'm also able to cite this: "A similar analysis was applied when comparing the 3 selected ethnic groups: Argentine white, Argentine mestizo, and Mexican mestizo."[4] In his study of Latin America's ethnic composition, Ernesto Lizcano Fernandez writes: "La polémica sobre la composición étnica en Argentina gira en torno a la importancia concedida a los indígenas, por un lado, y a los blancos y mes ti zos, por otro. La CIA, EFE y Coy coinciden en que la población blanca alcanza el 97, e incluso el 98%, de la población". Translation: "The controversy over Argentina's ethnic composition revolves round the importance conceded to the indigenes, on one side, and to whites and Mestizos, on the other. The CIA, EFE and Coy coincide in that the white population reaches 97%, and even 98%, of the population".([5]) Clearly this scholar has referred to a white Argentine ethnicity, just as he has referred — perhaps uncontroversially? — to an indigenous and to a Mestizo one.

• Lastly, is it too much to ask that WP:CIVIL be observed in this debate? What need is there of comments such as [6]? SamEV (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• note - this user is responding to a canvassing request for support from User:Pablozeta Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly was canvassed by him: twice. And this was my reply to him after his first effort, and it is my reply to you: [7]. Good day. SamEV (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer your response to the second canvassing - " I see that you've been told about this concern. Be careful." Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're being sincere or not, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. In full, I wrote: "I thought you saw my last edit summary; anyway, I see that you've been told about this concern. Be careful." I.e. after his second attempt, I realized that he didn't read my edit summary, so I visited his talk page to inform him about canvassing, but I saw that he'd been told about it, and that there was even an ANI thread about his actions. I said (trying to be kind; I really felt like being much more blunt) "Be careful" as in "ten cuidado", 'take care not to do that anymore and get yourself blocked'. (If you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest we do so elsewhere, so as not to distract from the real issue here.) SamEV (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to SamEV. Nobody is disputing that the majority of the Argentine population might possibly be considered 'white'. Indeed, the survey cited in Schwartzmann's article (the best source we seem to have) states that 63% of the Argentine population 'feel white'. This is not what the article is claiming: that 'white Argentine' is an ethnicity. To support this, we would need evidence that these Argentines describe themselves as 'Argentinos blancos' - this has not been provided. As Pablozeta himself stated some time ago, when Argentines are asked about their ethnicity they tend to be more specific:

About BLP, and since this term is not common in Spanish language sources, it is probable that all the living people I mention in the article -if asked about their ethnicity- will not answer "White Argentine", but "Argentine of European/Spanish/Italian/German/Arab/Armenian descent", because the exact term argentino blanco is not commonly used in Argentina. But this is also explained in the section Usage of the term, so we are going round in circles over and over again. [8]

It is clear from this that Pablozeta himself is saying that the Argentines he is classifying as 'white Argentines' do not do so - the 'white Argentine' ethnicity is a synthesis consisting of the intersection of two different categories: those who see themselves as 'white' (which is not of course restricted to Argentines), and those who are of Argentine nationality (who need not see themselves as 'white'). There is no evidence provided that a significant proportion of the Argentine population see a 'white Argentine' ethnicity as being a meaningful concept, with a distinct culture, language/dialect, style of dress, religion or whatever that would normally be seen as marking membership of that group. Ethnicity is a social construct, not an objective 'fact', and for an ethnicity to exist, the supposed members must recognise themselves as members of an ethnicity they themselves consider meaningful. I have asked for evidence of this, but none has been forthcoming. Instead we are offered the excuse that it isn't 'politically correct' to use such terms. This could possibly be true, but since this seems to be an non-falsifiable proposition, it cannot be used as a basis for argument.

As for your remarks about civility, if we were to go further into this, I'm sure I can find much worse from the pro-article camp: indeed, there have been traces of it in this AfD discussion already. In any case, if Pablozeta wishes to come out with pseudoscientific arguments base on little more than defunct 'racist' science, and on his own subjective opinions, I reserve the right to describe them in appropriate terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no evidence provided that a significant proportion of the Argentine population see a 'white Argentine' ethnicity"

Does it matter that reliable sources do? SamEV (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources cited in the article say this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lizcano, at least. I quoted him in my first comment here, q.v., but I'll requote him here if you'd like. SamEV (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Lizcano article is in Spanish, I'll leave this to others to debate, except to point out that the article has an abstract in English:

Abstract: This article is based on the characterization, quantification and geografical distribution of the six ethnic groups in those that the Ibero-American population is divided: Latin or Iberian, Indigenous, Black, Creole, Garífuna and Asian. From this, it is possible to distinguish four types of countries in Iberoamérica (Indo-European, afrocriollo, afromestizo and criollo) and the Ibero-American cultural area is confronted with the other cultural areas of the American continent (English and French spoken North America and English and French spoken Caribbean).

There is no mention of a 'white Argentine' ethnicity as such. Indeed, once again, we are given an article not specifically on the subject of ethnicity in Argentina at all, but on a much broader topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a requote: "La polémica sobre la composición étnica en Argentina gira en torno a la importancia concedida a los indígenas, por un lado, y a los blancos y mes ti zos, por otro. La CIA, EFE y Coy coinciden en que la población blanca alcanza el 97, e incluso el 98%, de la población". Translation: "The controversy over Argentina's ethnic composition revolves round the importance conceded to the indigenes, on one side, and to whites and Mestizos, on the other. The CIA, EFE and Coy coincide in that the white population reaches 97%, and even 98%, of the population".([9]) The translation is mine. If you dispute it, please check with a third party. SamEV (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the gross disparity between the figures you cite, and those in the Schwartzmann article, one would have to ask how they could possibly be reconciled. In any case, if "whites and Mestizos" (i.e. Mestizos = those of mixed ancestry) comprise "one side" then the article seems to suggests that the 'whites' don't consider themselves as separate from 'Mestizos'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what he does state, not suggest, in that document, is that about 85% is white, that some sources treat the Mestizos as white, and that as result the white total is augemented to 97% or 98% in such sources. SamEV (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without knowing how the figure was arrived at, one can't really say much about its validity - the Schwartzmann figures seem to be from a recent survey, so one would think they were more likely to be valid (and in any case, saying that X% of the Argentine population 'is white' isn't the same thing as saying they consider to be ethnically 'white Argentine', so we aren't comparing the same figures). The point is though, that if some sources say one thing, while others say something else, it is absolutely clear that ethnicity in Argentina is (as is normal in most contexts) complex, fluid, and contested, and that simple statements about the composition and/or size (and sometimes, even the existence) of a group are more or less meaningless. I'm sure a good article could be written on the complexities of ethnicity in Argentina, but this one isn't it. The article starts off with the assumption that there is a specific ethnicity, with clear criteria for membership. and then goes on to make assertions about it not borne out by the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it's Levinson (whom the article also cites) who states explicitly that some sources combine the two groups.[10] As for Lizcano, note that on the table on page 34 (page 218 of the original) he gives a figure of 85% for Whites, and 11% for Mestizos. He's only reporting that other sources speak of 97% and 98% white.

If ethnicity in Argentina is "complex, fluid, and contested", that should be in the article. If there are multiple points of view then there are multiple points of view and a remedy called WP:NPOV. There's no reason why the article can't cite figures from multiple sources (since when is that a problem?), as mandated by Wikipedia policy, and that there's even dispute among scholars (*not* among Wikipedians; our own opinions are not reliable sources) over whether there's such a thing as a White Argentine ethnicity. You've already seen sources that claim there is. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC); 23:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I then suggest you start work on an article on Ethnic complexity in Argentina, or some other neutrally-titled topic, and base it on all relevant sources, rather than those that (supposedly) support a preconceived definition of a specific ethnic group? If ethnicity is contested, you cannot make statements about whether person X is of a particular 'ethnicity', as the article we are currently debating seeks to do, unless you have verifiable evidence that the person in question has self-identified as such. Indeed, you shouldn't necessarily take a single self-identification as necessarily being valid in all situations - ethnicity itself is often contextual, and 'who you are' may depend on 'why you are being asked'. The article under consideration makes all sorts of unjustified assumptions, not just about 'white Argentines', but about ethnicity in general. It just isn't valid as an entry in a 21st-century encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone else can take you up on your suggested article.

Regardless of whether any individuals are mentioned and depicted, the group, as a group, is a legitimate topic, for which there are reliable sources that provide facts and figures. The inclusion of individuals should be done according to sources and may even be a matter or removing the images until that's done, rather than deleting the article. SamEV (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC); 01:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "reliable sources that provide facts and figures" beyond the raw and greatly-differing figures for the proportion of the Argentinian population that may consider themselves part of a contested ethnicity. Why would an article discussing a contested topic in neutral terms presume otherwise? The article as it stands goes into great detail about European migration to Argentina (detail which can already be found in other articles), on the basis that this somehow confirms the existence of a 'white Argentinian' ethnicity, rather than actually demonstrating that it does. It does much the same thing with a section on genetics - one that actually largely disproves the argument it purports to demonstrate, once one sees through the wilfully-overinterpreted spin. The only legitimate topic for an article based on the sources presented is one that indicates that ethnicity in Argentina is too complex an issue to be making assertions about " the group, as a group" beyond the statement that, as a social construct, its significance is contested, and its 'membership' undefined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no "reliable sources that provide facts and figures" beyond the raw and greatly-differing figures for the proportion of the Argentinian population that may consider themselves part of a contested ethnicity."

Suppose *your opinion* that those are "raw" figures is true. The relevant thing is that they're raw figures that are provided by reliable sources.
"greatly-differing figures". I refer you to WP:NPOV. The fact that sources differ about a topic is not fatal, and is not supposed to be.
Whatever their genetics, whatever differing scholarly opinions there may be (it would be nice, btw, if you backed up your claim that no white Argentine ethnicity exists, by citing the reliable sources that make that claim...) the fact remains that millions of Argentines classify themselves or are classified by reliable sources as white. That's the most relevant fact. SamEV (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources we have been presented with show two things: (A) That outside sources classify X%, Y% or Z% of Argentines as white, and (B) In a single survey (results cited in Schwartzmann) 63% of a sample of Argentines stated, when asked whether they felt 'white', 'black', 'indigenous', or one of several combinations answered that they 'felt white'. They were not asked if they considered themselves to be ethnically 'white Argentinian', or indeed whether 'white Argentinian' was an ethnic group at all. We are repeatedly going over the same ground here, because you fail to grasp the fundamental point: that an 'ethnicity' can only be demonstrated to exist if it can be shown that the supposed 'members' actually believe it does. And it isn't down to me to prove the non-existence of the subject of articles. It is down to you to prove their existence. This is basic Wikipedia policy - and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually claim that no Argentines refer to themselves as "white"? SamEV (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean that you do not claim that no Argentines call themselves white.

"They were not asked if they considered themselves to be ethnically 'white Argentinian'"

Well, we agree that some Argentines call themselves white. But self-ascription is not the only way to classify populations. Censuses and surveys that use enumerators to classify people by race are not rejected by Wikipedia, AFAIK. For example, the US census used to be conducted wholly by enumerators, and enumerators are still used in some cases; the census even imputes race and ethnicity for respondents who don't answer those questions, but I've yet to see Wikipedia claim that the US census is therefore an unreliable source. But certainly, I agree, as I've at least alluded, that we Wikipedians should not be in the business of imputing race and ethnicity. That should be done by experts.

"...outside sources classify X%, Y% or Z% of Argentines as white..."

Outside, inside, in between... The point is that those sources exist. That's indispensable.

"And it isn't down to me to prove the non-existence of the subject of articles. It is down to you to prove their existence."

No, sir. It is up to me to show that there are reliable sources that claim that it exists. I have. SamEV (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"self-ascription is not the only way to classify populations": True. I could 'classify' all Argentinians as descendants of an illicit affair between Cleopatra and Fu Manchu if I felt like it. This wouldn't be of any relevance to a Wikipedia article about ethnicity though. If a Wikipedia article purports to construct an 'ethnicity' about those who do not recognise it, it is wrong. This isn't about interpretation of evidence, but about 'facts': ethnicity only exists in the minds of those who believe in it. Or have you got sources that suggest otherwise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This wouldn't be of any relevance to a Wikipedia article about ethnicity though."

Andy, I have a source that says this, quite relevantly to ethnicity (translation): "The controversy over Argentina's ethnic composition revolves round the importance conceded to the indigenes, on one side, and to whites and Mestizos, on the other. The CIA, EFE and Coy coincide in that the white population reaches 97%, and even 98%, of the population".([11]) Relevant and reliable. SamEV (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are still suggesting that "whites and Mestizos" equals 'whites'. I further note that you have not explained the disparity between the 97-98% figure you give and the 63% of the population that 'feel white' in the survey cited above. You completely ignore the genetic evidence cited in the article. You still refuse to acknowledge that ethnicity is a social construct, and can only be meaningfully defined in terms of self-assertion. In short, you refuse to accept that any interpretation other than your own is valid for the purposes of an article on Argentine ethnicity. Clearly, nothing I write is going to change your opinion, but I hope and expect that others reading this will understand the basis on which you can describe sources as "relevant and reliable" while they are evidently so only for the purposes of describing a 'white Argentine' ethnicity if subject to your enthusiastic over-interpretation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SamEV & Pablozeta. You are go around in circles, for not responding to the core of the problem. Understand one thing: no one doubts that the majority of Argentines are of European origin and could be "considered" white. In fact, I know Argentina and I have some Argentine friends of italian origin. The problem is: there is no evidence of the existence of "White Argentine" as an ethnic group, and if you propose it (be true or not) is original research. Original research is against Wikipedia's policies. After that, the information contained in the article is basically about Immigration and Argentine people, wich makes this article unecessary. Finally, I can read Spanish, and Lizcano never speak about "White Argentine" as an ethnic group. He only says the 85% are "creoles" (or white), but never said "White Argentine" are a distinct ethnic group.(p.218) He don't makes any research, and only refers such is being refered by others, that neither do ethnographic studies: [12] and [13] (p.226). Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There is no body of literature that treats "white argentines" as a separate ethnic group - this is basically a neologism here in wikipedia - the same with "white colombian", "white mexican" and "white Latin American", but their turn will come I am sure. As for Lizcano, he is the only source that is considering the "white", "mestizo", "indigenous" distinction to be ethnic - but he works with a non standard definition of ethnicity - he is using the term "grupos etnicos" for talking about what some authors call "ethnic categories" that is a group to which people are ascribed based on particular phenotypical or cultural traits regardless of their own selfidentification - this is not what we generally refer to as ethnicity in academia, and Lizacno knows this. What he is interested in is not ethnicity but geographic-genetic heritage. He explains this in detail in the preamble to his "The American Ethnic groups of the second half of the twentieth century" article in Revista mexicana del Caribe, Issue 1. In short he is not working with the standard concept of ethnicity when he writes "grupo etnico", but with something closer to what we normally call "race". In any case this is a highly suspicious case where writings by a single author is being used to justify the existence of a range of articles while no attempt is being made by the editors defending those articles to investigate how well the concepts he uses and conclusions he draws are reflective of the larger academic consensus. In fact even when presented with evidence to the contrary those articles are defended on the basis of only the CIA factbook (which simply imposes American racial ethnic categories on the societies studied) and Lizcano.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the reliability of the international sources I provided above:

1) The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina Although some here consider this source unreliable, their figures coincide completely with the other sources. I contacted Mr. Duane Frasier (one of the owners of the site) and asked him the source for this ethnic group; he answered: The source for this group is a list from decades back. This group is composed of Argentines of European descent.[14] So this clearly demonstrated that White Argentines are a recognized ethnic group from decades ago.

2) World Statesmen.org: Argentina On the reliabilty on this source, I contacted Ben M. Cahoon (the owner of the site), and he replied: Hello Mr. Zampini, Thank you for your email and for visiting my website worldstatesmen.org. TIME Almanac Powered by Encyclopeadia Britannica 2009, they now call the group "European Extraction" and not "White/European". I originally began with the 2003 Encyclopeadia Britannica Almanac which was discontinued. I think that Mr. Andy (being a British) won't doubt on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or will he? [15]

3) Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups., I think nobody here doubts on the reliability of the CIA Factbook, or do you?

4) Mr. Francisco Lizcano Fernández is a reputed scholar of Mexico's University. Regardless of whether he agrees or not with other scholars, he is a reliable source himself. Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI. Besides, going down to semantics, all these sources speak of Ethnic groups, or Composición Étnica, nor "racial groups" or "racial composition".

To finnish, the links provided by GiovBag link to advertisements of books, but it is not possible to see their real content.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand that Dr. Lizcano himself admits that he is using the word "ethnic group" in a no-standard way. Tjis is not about his reliability as a source this is about the fact that he uses terminology in a way that is incompatibe with to other sources and that he explicitly says that "white x" is not in fact what would normally be described as an ethnic group. Secondly the fact that the claim of the excistence of a White x ethnic group is backed by a single source with a self-admittedly non-standard usage is clearly a violation of WP:REDFLAG. The existence of these articles woudl require that there was a strong secondary source that unequivocally states that White argentines are considered an ethnic group by a majority of scholars. In the absence of this we are simply elevating a fringe view to factual status by having this page. Your personal communications are likewise completely inadmissible as sources per WP:V. Also the Encyclpedia Britannica in its entry about Agentinian ethnic groups does not even suggest that whites should be a separate ethnic group[16] ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablozeta is perfectly aware that the Joshua Project is not a reliable source, having already raised this at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Reliability_of_the_Joshua_Project_as_source. A simple inspection of the worldstatesmen.org site will show that it is unlikely to be recognised as a reliable source. THe CIA figures seem to have been pulled out of thin air: no indication of how they were arrived at has been given, and they are clearly contradicted by later evidence. In any case, none of these sources address the issue of a self-defined ethnicity. And yet again, we are being given general sources, rather than ones specifically related to Argentina. Frankly, this endless regurgitation of the same arguments, with no attempt to discuss the real issues is getting close to disruption, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump: Why does an indication need to be given on how they arrived at their conclusion when it is so self evident? Do you think they made up those numbers for craps and giggles? Please show us how it's contradicted by "later" evidence. CIA world factbook is updated bi-weekly. Every ethnicity is self defined. Sorry but your arguments are not well thought out in my opinion.24.129.77.107 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you aren't suggesting that the CIA checks the ethnic makeup of Argentina bi-weekly? A good way to assess the CIA's data will be to see what they provide for the ethnicity of other countries. As can be seen from this comprehensive list [17], some explicitly state their source, others cite figures, while others tell us next to nothing. Spain is a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types", Switzerland is (confusingly) "German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%" - evidently the CIA thinks that 'German' etc is an ethnicity, but 'Swiss' isn't. Oh, and Denmark is "Scandinavian, Inuit, Faroese, German, Turkish, Iranian, Somali" - no proportions given. To suggest that such a ragbag collection of data is authoritative is frankly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I presume you aren't suggesting that the CIA checks the ethnic makeup of Argentina bi-weekly?"

Nobody has ever said that the CIA checks the ethnic make-up of Argentina bi-weekly. But if there was reliable information that contradicted the ethnic make up of a country and they got that information from, let's say, other countries governments it most likely would have been updated.

"A good way to assess the CIA's data will be to see what they provide for the ethnicity of other countries."

How would it? Most if not all of the CIA numbers are based how the population of those countries self identify as.

"As can be seen from this comprehensive list [18], some explicitly state their source, others cite figures, while others tell us next to nothing. Spain is a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types", Switzerland is (confusingly) "German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%" - evidently the CIA thinks that 'German' etc is an ethnicity, but 'Swiss' isn't. Oh, and Denmark is "Scandinavian, Inuit, Faroese, German, Turkish, Iranian, Somali" - no proportions given. To suggest that such a ragbag collection of data is authoritative is frankly ridiculous."

What is this irrelevant information? Again this is based on how the population of those countries self identify. They have to go with the information that is provided, whether it's limited or not. Why don't you also go argue about how people self identify on the census. Switzerland is a country with major groups that is based on the language they speak and usually the area they are from, hence the names Swiss German, Swiss French, etc.Secret killer (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on what grounds are you claiming that the CIA's figures are based on self-identification? Are you actually claiming for example that Spanish people will, when asked about their ethnicity, state that they are a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types". I'd have thought that "Spanish", or perhaps "Catalan", "Andalucían", "Basque" etc would be much more likely. If you actually wish to claim the CIA figures are correct, I'd suggest you raise this at WP:RSN. Otherwise, stop trying to spin things by putting the most ridiculous interpretation into the data for other countries, just to support your case for Argentina. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change name to "Argentians of European descent" or "European Argentinians". I checked Infotrac and found no references to "White Argentinians". Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And on what grounds are you claiming that the CIA's figures are based on self-identification?"

Because ethnicity is based on self-identification. That is like asking how do you know the census figures are based on self-identification.

"Are you actually claiming for example that Spanish people will, when asked about their ethnicity, state that they are a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types". I'd have thought that "Spanish", or perhaps "Catalan", "Andalucían", "Basque" etc would be much more likely."

I have been to Spain and a lot of Spanish people actually say they are Mediterranean. But anyways you are not thinking about possible factors, such as information for that country is limited. And it could be said that this is the case since they did not add percentages which they usually do.

"If you actually wish to claim the CIA figures are correct, I'd suggest you raise this at WP:RSN."

I do not have to or would want to. Arguing here is enough.

"Otherwise, stop trying to spin things by putting the most ridiculous interpretation into the data for other countries, just to support your case for Argentina."

I am not doing anything like that. I could actually say the same for you. Secret killer (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering there are articles for not only White communities worlwide but also for every single large ethnic community in Argentina, it is not fair that there cannot be an article for White Argentines. Any community has the right for an article of their own, and if one shall be deleted then so should all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.107.117 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This IP account has no history of past Wikipedia edits. The datestamp shows that this edit was made after the 7 days allowed for comments. (edit: I am unsure about the latter point, and am trying to get clarification) AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This friendly notice isn't neutrally worded:[19][20][21][22][23]. You will notice that some of these users have already been canvassed once by the same user...·Maunus·ƛ· 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed at AN/I. Pablozeta has stated that he was unaware that canvassing was against policy, and has apologised: [24] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.I missed that.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My impression that this article should stay. The information which provides is quite valuable and cannot be included in an article which only deals with with "Immigration" or "Composition of the Population in Argentina". Furthermore, I consider myself a White Argentinian, and the deletion of this article would be the denial of the group I consider myself a member.--Rusoargentino (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The scope of this article is not properly covered by any other articles: 1) Immigration in Argentina does not deal with the descendance of immigrants (five-six generations since the massive XIXth c. immigration). Talking about immigration is not the same as talking about their descendent population. 2) The many articles on European-Argentine communities do not consider their intermixing, which is -by far- the most important component of all of their descendance in Argentina. Deleting this article would imply to the average reader that immigrants descents in Argentina remained fundamentally separated along original national lines, which is not the case. 3) The article on Demographics of Argentina is not a specifics dedicated article, as it aspires to include every ethnicity in the country. The custom in WP is to further develope contents in subsidiary articles, as in Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentine or Afro Argentine, all of which are dedicated to minority populations in Argentina. No doubt that a much larger population as this should be considered in a separate article. 4) An alternative article on "European-Argentines" would leave aside Argentines of Arab and Armenian origins, which are always considered along the Europeans in the Argentine context. In sum, given that the relevance of this article is evident, I think that the main problem remains its contested title. Anyway, as long as the terminology can be reliably sourced and it is discussed in the main body of the article, there shouldn't be any problem about this. BTW, many passions seem to be at place in this discussion, and that's not the way to reach a fine solution. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note. Other user who is responding to a canvassing request for support from Pablozeta [25]. --GiovBag (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments regarding this issue are not influenced nor inspired by pablozeta's request. He may have violated policy -out of ignorance of it, I'm sure-, but that does not invalidate my arguments regarding this AfD. Assume good faith and don't do wikilawyering, please. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is true, your arguments are not invalidated for the canvassing of Pablozeta, but it needs to be record of it. It is a matter of transparency. But you just repeat arguments that don't go to the heart of the issue. 1) Not true. Articles about immigration includes arrival, the life they made in the new country and the traces left on it. Including their descendants. 2) the many articles on European-Argentine communities don't consider their intermixing?, maybe, try with Ethnography of Argentina, Argentine people and Demographics of Argentina. 3) Afro-Argentine has an article because it is officially recognized as an ethnic group by the State and by themselves, as the different indigenous peoples. "White Argentine" don't. 4) Arabs and Armenian are considered European by whom?, at least give us a reference. Whatever, but the point is, you never go to the heart of the issue. Given that the irrelevance of this article is evident, the problem of its contested title is the least important, and it must be deleted. Saluti.--GiovBag (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet again, we are given arguments which do not address the central issue regarding ethnicity in Argentina: how is it seen by Argentines? Regardless of how the article is entitled, it cannot be legitimate unless it is about a recognised subject. As IANVS states, the migrant population of Argentina has intermarried - but as the genetic evidence etc shows, not only with other 'whites', but with the indigenous population, and with the 'black African' migrant community too. We have a survey which indicates that 63% of the Argentine population 'feel white', but no evidence that they consider themselves to be ethnically 'white Argentine', 'European Argentine', or indeed anything other than 'Argentine'. As to the question regarding Argentines of Arab and Armenian origin, where is the source for this statement that they are "always considered along the Europeans in the Argentine context"? Considered by whom?

As for 'passions' in this debate, I'll only suggest that one or two participants (not IANVS) might help cool things down if they were not to exchange messages alleging some sort of anti-white reverse-racist plot, though it is flattering in a way to be seen as the leader of the conspiracy, rather than an unwilling tool as I am usually portrayed (I may not be able to read Spanish, but Google Translate works well enough). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although it appears the term "White Argentine" (or its translation in Spanish) has been used in some sources, it does not appear to me that there are sources treating the subject in detail. I'm not opposed to articles titled "White [citizen of X country]", since I think that there have been a number of sources providing significant discussion of what "White" means in the United States or Brazil etc. But while many Argentines may consider themselves "White" or "Blanco", it doesn't appear to me that this concept has received significant attention in an Argentine context. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 100% concur with IANVS --Hispasuomi (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is this only this editor's 3rd edit on Wikipedia - they seem to have shown no interest in the article subject previously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

note: Maybe could be interesting read the discussion about deletion of Blanco Argentino, one year ago. Among other reasons, becasue involved many Argentines users, and they decided to delete it. If any one understand spanish. [26]. In fact, there are some users that have appeared in the last days here "defending" the article. [27] and [28].--GiovBag (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original synthesis. Looking over the article, it's mostly about European immigration into Argentina, and Argentine demographics. There is little to no evidence of a separate "White Argentine" identity - it's a bit like "red-headed Irish" or "fat Germans". Sure these groups exist, and may be mentioned occasionally, but there is little useful that can be said about them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don’t believe that there are any specific Wiki policies to indisputably warrant the article’s deletion. Moreover, as a possibly relevant aside: anyone who has ever been throughout Latin America and to Argentina specifically, would instantly recognize that the vast majority of Argentines (unlike almost every other nation in Latin America, except maybe 1960’s era exiles from Cuba) do not fit the dominant visual stereotype of what non-Hispanics think of when they imagine a "Latino" / "Hispanic" / or "Spanish" person. The majority of Argentines in a visual lineup to your average American would be called "white", while the majority of Chileans, Bolivians, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians etc - may not be. Although the semantics of the article's title might need some work and tweaking, there is no doubt that the existence of a "White Argentine" phenomenon and cultural group exists (because of an array of unique historical factors) and is mentioned in an array of sources. This carries with it spill over effects dealing with everything from the ways Argentines see themselves vis-à-vis the rest of South America – to the way that the rest of South America views Argentines. To a novice reader in the United States for instance, it may be interesting and valuable to read an article explaining the nuances of a "white Argentines", as they may not realize that not all of South Americans are Indio campesinos with darker skin and black hair – but that many Argentines are blond with blue eyes and basically indistinguishable from your average "caucasian" "Anglo-Saxon" White American of German descent (except for the fact that they speak Spanish).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your irrelevant exercise in racial stereotyping: as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia prefers to base articles on reliable sources, rather than 'visual lineups'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, please read WP:Civil as "thanks, now go away" would most likely violate the latter. Moreover, I am not "racial stereotyping" but attempting to explain why the fact that most Argentines are seen by most of the World as "white", is notable in relation to their geographic position (for the record I personally dispute such outdated and simplistic categories - but my own view is irrelevant). So don’t make assumptions about issues which you clearly do not understand. Lastly, just because you are a self proclaimed "grump", doesn’t give you leeway to act like a dick.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'the vast majority of Argentines (unlike almost every other nation in Latin America, except maybe 1960’s era exiles from Cuba) do not fit the dominant visual stereotype of what non-Hispanics think of when they imagine a "Latino" / "Hispanic" / or "Spanish" person'. How exactly does this not constitute stereotyping? Do you really think that references to 'Argentines [that] are blond with blue eyes... basically indistinguishable from your average white "Anglo-Saxon" American of German descent' can be seen as anything other than this. I'll assume good faith, and accept that your intentions were honest, but I think you should reconsider your words. And BTW, how 'the rest of the world' sees Argentines, even if it were sourced, would be irrelevant in an article on 'white Argentine' ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, the concept of "ethnicity" is inexact, disputed, fluid, and constantly evolving. To some researchers for instance, it is enough that one simply "self-identifies" as part of a particular ethnicity, while others almost dispute the entire concept of ethnicity altogether (particularly as it applies to "race"). And I won’t "reconsider" my wording, as they were not my own personal views, but those views that I have encountered in my own experience. At the expense of WP:OR, nearly every "white Argentine" I have ever met in the United States for instance (over 50) has spoken of how most Americans are surprised to find that they speak fluent Spanish, as to them they visually don’t appear "hispanic"/"latino" etc. Unfortunately we live in a World where people often make assumptions by stereotyping people into "races" – to acknowledge this obvious fact (or even chronicle this fact per WP:Verify) is not to endorse it.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your notion that ethnicity is so fluid a concept that it can mean anything is fairly offensive from an anthropological standpoint. It cannot - a group does not simply become an ethnic group because they feel they have "whiteness" in common - that would make any group of people with something in common an ethnic group - e.g. football fans. An ethnic group is an ethnic group itf they have a common ethnic identity consisting of at least some cultural traits and an ideology of shared heritage and boundedness in relation to other groups - and yes it requires selfascription - so ethnic groups are not racial categories to which people are ascribed regardless of their self-identification. There is no evidence that this is the case in for whites in Argentina. But in any case there would still need to be a source that clearly states that "White Argentines" consider themselves ethnically (and not e.g. racially) different from non-white Argentines. What you are describing is simply the experience that people become racialized upon entering the US - it also happened to me , I wasn't white before I entered the US and people classified me as white because of my looks - there is no category of "white Danes" - and Danes think of themeslves as Danes not as dividd into American style ethno-racial groups. In any case it is simply anecdotal evidence which can be instantly countered by other anecdotal evidence: All the Argentines I have met identified with a particular European ethnicity (italian or Danish or german) and with an Argentinian national identity, but never as white or non-white. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm well aware of the fluidity of 'ethnicity', as I hope my arguments on this talk page and elsewhere should make clear. I'll accept that my edit summary may have been somewhat 'over-grumpy', but nevertheless, I think that my objections to your initial posting stand. The opinions/prejudices of outsiders are utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the validity of a 'white Argentine' ethnicity: if it exists at all, it is a social construct, and to suggest that the perceptions of outsiders somehow validate a contested categorisation is stereotyping - indeed, in the context of Wikipedia articles on Latin America, it seems to have been a driving force in imposing external categories in entirely inappropriate contexts. I think we can do better than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient evidence of notability of this concept as freestanding; inappropriate synthesis and original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Really not much in the article to support the assertion that being white and being from Argentina is a notable or significant ethnic/racial classification, a lot of disparate sources are being thrown together to try to make something of nothing, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Ethnography of Argentina and/or Immigration to Argentina. I agree with those above that there's not a need for a separate article on 'White Argentines' when those two articles (and Demographics of Argentina) can handle the subject perfectly well. This one is not well sourced and seems to contain more than a minimal amount of synthesis. Robofish (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "Argentines of European Descent". Ideally, all these pages should be moved into their respective countries' ethnography articles. There's the rub, though. There are similar ones for most Latin American white people. The use of "white" in the case of the Argentines seems to be only mentioned occasionally, but "Europeans in Argentina" or some variant thereof appears in practically all overview literature on the country. I remember there being a related - and prolonged - argument about white people in Chile some time back, so renaming the others might not be a bad idea (with resulting changes in intros and general article text). Peace, Nononsenseplease (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though a renamed article might have a less contentious title, that isn't the problem. You can't have an 'ethnography article' unless you have reliable evidence that the 'ethnic group actually exists as a self-ascribed group. So far, none has been given for either a 'white' or a 'European' ethnicity. Furthermore, some of the article's proponents have argued that 'white' and 'European' aren't synonymous in the Argentine context, and if this is true, then a rename would once again be imposing Wikipedia's definition of an 'ethnicity' onto the subject: violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. The problem with the article isn't the name, it is the content, as has been made abundantly clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.