User talk:Pablozeta

es:Usuario Discusión:Pablozeta

1) I never even noticed that I left out the people of Syrian-Lebanese origin. But anyways the term white usually, in it's strictest sense, refers to people who are European or European in origin.

2) I don't think there is any evidence that José de San Martín was son of Carlos María de Alvear and an Amerindian servant. All the reliable sources say he was the son of Juan de San Martin and Gregoria Matorras both of whom were peninsulares. I think that what you are saying is nothing more then hearsay and it's the equivalent of what people have said about Hitler having Jewish ancestry and Fidel Castro having Crypto Jewish ancestry or his mother being a mulatta.

"but the doubts about his racial origin may cause some objections to his inclusion in the photo collage."

I think you meant to say doubts of his racial PURITY may cause some objections. I'm not worried because it won't, if it does then I would provide my source.

3) No Wikiscribe didn't make it. I'm not Argentine, Hispanic, or US Hispanic. I'm not a WASP. Thanks for the compliment.Secret killer (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the brief class of history; I knew some of that info already, but some I did not. When you say "Black Turks", is it in the same sense that Russians refer to Chechnians as "Blacks"? Maybe I was not clear using the word "Turkic" (my mistake); with "Turkic" I refer to a phenotype that is an intermmediate between Caucasian (White, Europid) and Mongoloid (Yellow). Going through the photographs of Turkic people that appear in the Joshua Project and in WP, I see that only the Uyghurs, the Kyrgyzes, the Kazakhs, some Tatars -not the Crimean Tatars- Karapalkaks, Tuvinians and the Siberian tribes (Hazara, Koryak, Ewenki, Bashkir, Chuchki) look "Mongoloid" and have oblique eyes.

On the contrary, the Turk girl of this photo, and the Turkmen boys that appear in this photo don't look Mongoloid at all; the boy at the left is red-haired (although the photo of a Turkmen girl that appears in WP denotes Mongoloid features). I've seen in WP photos of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, historian Iber Ortayli, singers Hadise and Tarkan Tevetoglu, and model Kivanç Tatlitug; they look very Caucasian to me. My brother told me he met a Turkish tourist in Buenos Aires, and she was red-haired and blue-eyed. The same happens with the Gagauzes; this Gagauzi girl looks pretty Caucasian to me. This Hemshin girl might pass as German if she wasn't wearing a turbant.

Uzbek maybe are more difficult to classify, for the photos I've seen show them neither Caucasian-like nor Mongoloid-like. Some say that Azeris are genetically more related to other Caucasus peoples -or even to Persians, Talysh or other Iranid peoples- than to Turkics such as Turkmen of Uzbeks Armeniapedia. So, Azeris appear to be a case of Language Replacement. The case of the Gagauzes seems to be similar Origin of Gagauzes.

Sorry, I made it long. What I really ask from you is your personal perception of yourselves, the ethnic Turks (note I don't say Turkish, meaning born within the boundaries of Turkey; so don't count the Kurds born inside your country). Do you see yourselves as Caucasians, as Mongoloids, or as none of the two? --Pablozeta (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

İlber Ortaylı is a Crimean Turkish (not Tatar), Hadise is Circussian, Tarkan Tevetoglu is of Karadeniz region. Kivanç Tatlituğ is from Adana. Gagauzes is a Turkic speaking people, they applied for Turkish citizenship in the 1920's but Atatürk blocked their application as they are not Muslim. I think Oghuzs appear to be a case of Language Replacement, since Turkestan was an Iranian-speaking region historically. Azeri people is Oghuz people who migrated to first Iran, then Turkey, lastly back to Iran. According to historian Prof. Halaçoğlu, Hülya Avşar, a Kurdish singer and actress, is from the Avşar tribe of Oghuz people. That shows some Oghuz tribes became Kurds. People are mostly Caucasians, but it does not show there are no Mongoloids, for example actress Işık Aras has Mongoloid features (http://www.google.com.tr/imgres?imgurl=http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/660/g13217861266491qn5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.forumezi.net/elveda-derken/73375-isik-aras-biyografisi-elveda-derken-dizisi-oyunculari.html&h=100&w=150&sz=5&tbnid=inZ96rQzq7_pEM:&tbnh=64&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%25C4%25B1%25C5%259F%25C4%25B1k%2Baras&zoom=1&q=%C4%B1%C5%9F%C4%B1k+aras&hl=tr&usg=__kRfWszMDEz3HG3z4Ajkg15kf8wA=&sa=X&ei=TaGMTIjsOdjT4wanga3UCg&ved=0CCkQ9QEwBA). Kavas (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually already been resolved. Sergio denis has been redirected to Sergio Denis. The capitalization doesn't matter. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pablo. Soy DagosNavy, aunque mi nombre real es Darío (firmo "Darius" aca en WP en inglés). Creo que el problema que tuviste con el artículo en WP en castellano no tiene nada que ver con la redacción del articulo; en realidad se debe a una fuerte tendencia hacia la "corrección política" en la Wiki-es que acá en inglés no tenemos. En la WP en español, al no aplicarse a rajatabla (no se por qué motivo) los distintos criterios de inclusión enciclopédica, cualquier afirmación que esté en contra de la opinión de la mayoría de los editores tiene muy pocas posibilidades de perdurar (por ejemplo: citas de autores que no estén de acuerdo con el revisionismo histórico en Argentina). En la Wiki-en, en cambio, la única condición es que lo que publiques esté sustentado por varias fuentes confiables; después se podrá discutir algunos detalles que estén abiertos a interpretación, pero una vez que demostraste que lo que editaste está respaldado por tal o cual autor, la edición queda firme. En mi opinión, esa es la principal causa por la que "rebotaron" tu artículo en español: una tendencia a la corrección política que acá sería considerada "punto de vista" y objetada, pero que allá por lo visto es ley.

En cuanto al artículo en inglés, estoy parcialmente de acuerdo con Jor70: habiendo ya dos artículos donde incluír el tema, como Demographics of Argentina y Argentine people, White Argentine podría ser considerado WP:POVFORK, es decir, una innecesaria división de contenidos con la intención de darle demasiada relevancia a un tópico. Pero bueno, hasta ahora el artículo en inglés no fue cuestionado por nadie...

Aunque habitualmente edito artículos relacionados con Argentina (especialmente aquellos relativos a Mar del Plata o a la historia militar), no tengo otra relación con Wikiprojecto:Argentina que no sean mis contactos con Jor70 o con Alexf. Creo que este último usuario te puede orientar mucho mejor que yo al respecto. Espero haberte sido útil, y estoy a tu disposición para cualquier consulta. Un abrazo.--Darius (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué tal, Pablo? Es enorme el trabajo que te estás tomando, y muy completo por lo que ví. Te felicito. En otro momento le daré una lectura más detenida a ver si se me ocurren comentarios. Por lo pronto, lo que estuve viendo (que no haya ya editado o taggeado) me pareció de lo más bien. Hasta pronto nomás! --IANVS (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to thank me. I realize that you are trying your best to adhere to Wiki policy.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solo quería agradecerte por tu intervención en la página de discusión de White Argentine. Tal vez así este usuario deje de poner palos en la rueda; digo "este" porque aunque usa muchas IP distintas, creo que es la misma persona. Igual, una parte de mí me dice que esta es una charla con un sordo, porque él no deja de buscarle la quinta pata al gato. Vuelvo a decirte muchas gracias por tu aporte.--Pablozeta (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. Por cierto, se puede copiar algo de cómo está desarrollada la introducción del artículo White American. Reconocer que: 1) White Argentine is an umbrella term including various distinct ethnicities (colectividades) as well as their mix; 2) stating that this is not a term in legal/official use, nor in common use, in Argentina; but that it is the most common umbrella definition in eng-lang sources; 3) that it comes to be a relevant definiton (i.e. over "criollo") only after the massive and diverse migration of the 19th and 20th centuries. That would put the article in proper context. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, IANVS, disculpá que te vuelva a molestar, pero el usuario anónimo que aparece en White Argentine insiste e insiste con poner las plantillas de investigación original y falta de neutralidad una y otra vez. Ya ni se molesta en seguir la discusión en la talk page; directamente pone las plantillas de prepo. Esto va camino a ser una guerra de ediciones, y creo que nadie quiere eso -excepto él-. Las últimas dos veces fué el mismo usuario seguro, porque las IP coinciden. Qué te parece si pido -o pedimos- semiprotección para la página? Así lo obligaríamos a crear una cuenta, y si sigue insistiendo mucho hasta podríamos pedir su bloqueo temporario (Esto en el último de los casos, por supuesto). No se me ocurre otra cosa, por ahí a vos te surge otra idea. Es una pena porque en estos últimos dos o tres días, los breves ratos que podría dedicar a expandir el artículo los he tenido que desperdiciar en esta discusión estéril; la verdad que esto desgasta un poco. Gracias por tu atención de nuevo.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, if the anonymous user comes back to edit war, without continuing the discussion with further arguments nor seeking consensus, then we should ask for semi-protection, at least to force the editor to register himself and make it clear that he is not multiple users. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, IANVS. Por favor fijate qué te parece la sección Usage of the term, a ver si con eso paramos la guerra de ediciones. En la sección Estimates tengo un problema con una referencia que queda mal, y no sé cómo arreglarlo, por favor ayudame. Muchas gracias por tus sugerencias y tu ayuda--Pablozeta (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

i like it. I made some more editions on it. Now, I think we maybe should summarize in a line at the intro some of this sections. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola de nuevo. The unknown user got mad; did you see all the changes he made in a few hours? Now he attacks the sports and music section. The section of rock may be somehow long, but in the Sports section I only specified what collectivity brought what sport, and lists of sportsmen of European descent. This can't wait, I will have to ask for the semi-protection of the article. Please, if you can, fix the defectous link in the Estimates section; I don't know how to fix it myself. Thanks for your contributions.--Pablozeta (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ask for the protection. I simply reverted his last edits. Now, if he has made some sensible improvement we'll simply re-add it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, the guy attacked again, but he did many changes in three different times, so I couldn't undo all his changes all at once. I keep a version of the article every time I edit it, so I could restore my last version. I redid some of your edits, but some may have been lost. I already asked for protection. I'll try to apeace the guy in the talk page tomorrow, but this is getting worse and worse.--Pablozeta (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem of this article is that mixes different things, according to an interesting point of view, but that is original research. The author put together some things from the article Ethnography of Argentina with other part of Immigration to Argentina, to sustain his hypothesis of the existence of a different ethnic group born from the interweaving of different European ethnic groups in Argentina, called "White argentinian". In fact, put in the same group Arabs and Turks, with Germans and Anglo-saxons people, among others, according to ancient theory of physical anthropology, now lapsed. Adding a lot of unnecessary information about politics, music, culture and sports, which is the reproduction of articles about politics, music and sport in Argentina. However, would be different if the article was only about the term, more or less widespread, which brings together in an ambiguous way all Argentines with a some European origin. At that time, however, you could not say: White Argentines are the Argentine descendants of colonists from Spain and Portugal ..., bla, bla, bla. And you should change the whole article. In other words exist the "term" but don't exist the ethnic group, do you understand?. You are right, I don't write well in English, but I am an Antropologist, with a Master in Social Sciences and am also candidate to PhD (at Roma Tre University), and know what am talking about. If you really want a list of the specific problems of your article, when I have a bit more free time, I will tell you. Otherwise, I just let this observations, hoping someday this article will be reviewed with common sense. Regards. G. --79.43.220.9 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alla fine, lo parli o no l'italiano?, senza ombra di dubbi così mi posso esprimere meglio. Saluti.--79.43.220.9 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) First of all, even if the ethnic group did not exist -which unexistance is yet to be proved- this article is an equivalent to the articles White American, European Australian, White Mexican, White Brazilian, White Canadian, White Latin American, etc. It refers primarily to all the White inhabitants of Argentina. If what you are after is the removal of this article, then remove all the articles before mentioned as well. Many users here in the talk page have brought much evidence of the presence of White people in Argentina, and they have expressed their pride of being White Argentines.

2) This has been already said in the talk page many times: If the Afro-Argentines (considered as a cluster of different ethnic groups: Bantúes, Yorubas, Caboverdian Mulattoes put all together) and the Amerindians in Argentina (Aymaras, Quechuas, Tobas, Mapuches, Guaraníes, all put together) have their own articles on WP, why not the Argentines of European/Middle Eastern descent put all together in the same article? They have more things in common among them than with the other two groups (phenotypically and culturally speaking). It is just a matter of equality, don't you think? If this matter wasn't about White people, this whole discussion wouldn't exist.

3) It is easy to come here saying: "I have a PhD on Anthropology, out of the way!" Such a professional doesn't try to force changes in an article commiting vandalism. If you want me and the other editors of this article to believe that charade, I have to know your real name and your professional number first. So far, all I have seen is IP numbers and much incivil action, close to vandalism.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) Io non parlo l'italiano, ma lo capisco abastanzza bene.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to make a small clarification, I never said am PhD on Antropology. I just said am an Antropologist, Master in S.Sc., and candidate a PhD (cioè dottorando, non dottore), I don't said PhD of what, but if you want to know, is in Urban Studies. I now, is esay to said, and hard to belive. Even if you don't belive me, that not alter the reasons already gave you. I tell you with respect, I don't care if you feel pride to be white argentinian or not, it's not important, this is an Encyclopedia not a Blog. The problem is that this article is your own personal research, do you understand?, and even for that you react in that way, because nobody likes their work to be detract. G.--79.43.220.9 (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article again, it occurred to me that there may be a question as to whether an unsourced catogarisation of a person as belonging to a particular ethnic group might be a violation of WP:BLP policy. Rather than raise it in the talk page, it seemed more sensible to see whether the question had already been discussed elsewhere. A search produced no direct answer (though I'm still learning, and may have looked in the wrong places). I therefore posed the question hypothetically at the Village Pump. You might like to see the responses here.

From looking at this, it may be that many of the individuals you mention in your article as being 'White Argentinians' might fall foul of this policy (which applies anywhere an individual is discussed in Wikipedia, not just in their own biography). It isn't exactly clearcut as how this would be decided, so I'll leave it to you to consider. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at other similar articles, you'll see that the extensive lists of peoples are always developed in separate articles, as in for example List of Latin Americans. It is necessary to remove all the extensive lists of names from the main article to a new "list article". And, regarding the portrayed people that is to stay at the main article, its ascendancy has to be explicit and sourced. That is the standard across this kind of articles. Once these two problems are solved, there is nothing but semantics to discuss with the pundits. Our failure to accomplish these, gives arguments to them and serve as rationale for the OR tag at the top of the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Stimato e Carissimo Professore

la scrivo desde Campora San Giovanni, e moralmente dal Sudamerica per chiederle se cortesemente potrebbe tradurre e migliorare l'articolo sulla cittadina natale della mia comare, dato che il mio inglese è scarso e traballante. ho visto che si occupa anche di vari progetti, e che le piacciono la geografia e le fotografie, sarò ben felice di passargliene qualcuna del mio piccolo borgo, ossia di Campora San Giovanni, qui vive una hermosa comunità latinoamericana, ben integrata assieme alla comunità slava e araba e asiatica. detto questo certo di una sua certa e preventiva risposta la ringrazio in anticipo di vero cuore..e le auguro un buon fine settimana, portatore di pace e di successi♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may say you are not racist, and also you could say you only want the world understand that not all Latin Americans are "mestizos" because many others are of "white race" (even if human races do not exist biologically), but if you collaborate with a site whose mission is to promote racism, anti-Semitism and racial hatred, falsifying history, you are complicit of racism. This doesn't disable you to work at wikiepedia, but at least makes clear your position. Am sorry.--GiovBag (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GiovBag. I'm aware that Metapedia fails to accomplish historical accuracy in some critical topics, and I don't endorse the ideology of Metapedia completely. When I entered the community, I asked several administrators if it was alright to publish there articles on the White communities of the world -clarifying that I was not racist in any way, and that I applied the US Census Bureau criteria to define White people, and that included Ashkenazi Jews and Syrian-Lebanese Arabs- and my proposal was not only accepted but welcomed. So far, no one in that community has made any objection to all the articles I added. They also have an article with a list of notable Jews, and no pejorative comments on them are made in it. All I want to tell you is that so far Metapedia have shown more tolerance and open mind than many others in this WP.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles about Second World War, Third Reich, the Jewish people, the Holocaust or white supremacist at Metapedia? What do you thinking about?, do you understand the different between "Encyclopedia" and "propaganda"?, do you know Metapedia is considered SPAM on Wikipedia?, how you can legitimize (with your work) a Neo-Nazi site? I prefer to think that you are just naive and not a supporter of racial hatred and antisemitism.--GiovBag (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I read those articles of Metapedia, and I don't agree with their conclusions. I am not a Holocaust-denier, and I am definitely not an Anti-Semitist; I admire Jews for their ability and courage to survive four wars surrounded by enemies, only to cite an example. But I also believe that every story has two sides, and they have the right to tell theirs; I'm not saying that I believe them, but maybe some little part of their story might be true. Here in Argentina there's a song that reads: "If History is written by winners, that means that there's another story; the true story. Here it is for whoever wants to hear it."

I don't care what you prefer to think about me; maybe I am naive or maybe I'm not. Or maybe Metapedia is the only site so far that has respected my work, and not simply criticized it mercilessly. I worked very hard trying to referenciate every statement, data or figure of White Argentine, and keeping it neutral; and those three hungry wolves appeared and began to disect it in thin slices based on technicalities. Concerning my non-support on racist hatred, I just cite myself here: Razas del Mundo The site is still in formation, for I found new sources, and I am still collecting and processing the data, but in the third paragraph you'll read my thinking on the matter. I see English is not your mother tongue, so maybe you understand Spanish; if you don't, tell me and I'll translate it for you.--Pablozeta (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an abandoned wiki here. Don't bother asking the community about anything, because there is no such a thing. You can even host your list of items to buy at the supermarket, that nobody will even notice.

About Metapedia, I'm aware that you are simply taking advantage of the free space at their wiki, not as a steady editor, but just to keep a different copy of the article and work with it. Although I don't support the project, I don't think either that stealing or cheating nazis would be really something morally wrong. I even vandalize that site from time to time... In any case, it's not the topic wikipedia should be concerned about. Even if you didn't more the article there, someone else from the site would have done so at some other moment, the free licence allows and even encourages that. I'm used to find the things I wrote here at other places, even parts of my work at the Spanish article of the May Revolution are hanging at the walls of the UBA MBelgrano (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pablozeta, regarding your latest supposed 'request for mediation', the link you give indicates that no such request has been made.

I note that you state that you had "copied and pasted all comments of all users involved" while doing this. I consider this to be an unwarranted procedure, as involved users will wish to make up their own mind about this request: it is not your job to make submissions for others. For the record, I do not intend to support this attempted mediation, given your recent actions - notably the latest revert to an old and flawed version of the article, with no discussion whatsoever, and no edit summary. I think the only reasonable course at this point is to suggest that the article is beyond salvage, and to move for deletion, though I'll leave formally proposing this for a few days, to allow for any comments on recent proposals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you feel it's correct, but I strongly oppose to the idea of deletion. As I said before in the talk page, if you're going to ask for deletion, then ask for all the other articles on "White people" around the world to be deleted, for it's the same exact case. But, of course, you won't be brave enough to do this in the White American, European Australian, of White Brazilian articles, because they will kick you off and tell you: "go make trouble somewhere else". And I reverted the article to the last version I had saved, for the Italian (now he decided to give himself a name, Giov-sthg) had made so many vandalic changes, that I saw no better thing to do than to revert all changes at once. Note that I left the templates.--Pablozeta (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pablozeta, nothing that has been done by GiovBag constitutes vandalism. The White Argentine article is in clear breach of Wikipedia policy on multiple counts, as I have pointed out repeatedly. GiovBag and I have been trying to persuade you to follow this policy, but you have refused to even listen.

Regarding other 'White people' articles, I've already stated that I agree some may be problematic, and will of course be looking into them. Each needs to be considered on its own merits however, and as GiovBag has indicated, where there is clear grounds that the 'ethnicity' in question is one used by the group members themselves, an article on the ethnic group may be merited. What can never be permissible under Wikipedia rules is the imposition of an arbitrary outside category, and the subsequent imposition on that category on living individuals, particularly on the grounds of 'phenotype', which seems to me to be a polite way of saying 'because they look white to me'. If you want Wikipedia to include an article on 'White Argentinians', you'll have to first convince a significant proportion of the Argentinian population that they actually are of 'White' ethnicity, and then provide evidence that you have done so. Even then, you'd only be able to describe any individual as being 'White Argentinian' if you had WP:RS that he or she did the same, and probably also if that person's ethnicity was significant in regard to other notability. This is Wikipedia policy, and it can't be ignored for an article, regardless of what is discussed on the talk page, or in mediation. If you disagree with policy, you are of course as entitled as anyone else to argue in the appropriate place for it to be changed.

I think it a pity that you spent considerable time on the article without first checking what was permitted, but you have made things worse for yourself by refusing to take notice when problems have been pointed out. I only became involved with this article myself as a result of noticing the ongoing edit-wars. Had problems been discussed more calmly, I might not even have become involved. Id suggest that you might do better to consider working on articles with which you are less emotionally involved, should you wish to continue working on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not too familiar with the subject, but my advice would be to look at other similar articles, e.g. White Mexican, White Brazilian, White Latin American, and see what kinds of sources they use in those articles. Hope that helps, Athenean (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm afraid I'm also no expert and I note you've asked a number of editors for input. In answer to one of your questions, Yes - the BLP policy is that any unsourced fact can - indeed will - be removed; in particular anything contentious (and ethnic origin could be construed as such). Athenean's advice above seems useful, and I strongly urge you to try to determine out a consensus on the articles talk page. Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and defense in the talk page of White Argentine. One question; are you Mariano Belgrano, the historian? If you are, congratulations for your work. Once, during my years at the teacher's training college, I prepared an essay on the British Empire, and the section refering to the Invasiones inglesas was mainly based on a book of Argentine history written by Mariano Belgrano.

One last question, can you give me some advice on what to do to improve White Argentine? Maybe you know some bibliography where to look to better referenciate the article, or any other piece of advice. Thanks for all.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not related to him, I didn't even heard about him. I'm afraid I don't have much knowledge about the topic, I checked the article before they started to cut it, and the only detail I could point was when Matheu was incorrectly reported as a criollo. Perhaps I can help checking authors, list me some of the sources you used or want to use that the others rejected, and I may try to investigate a little around if they have awards, recognitions, criticism, controversies or other details to clarify whenever we should use them or not. MBelgrano (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have some links with results of searchs I have ran in google books, but I only have some vistas previas and some quotations where the phrases "argentinos blancos" or "white argentines" appear in those books. I want to share those links with you, but Andy the Grump is keeping track of every move I make in WP. I asked for help in the talk page of the Wikiproject of Ethnic groups, and he added a comment warning of the "serious breaches in WP's policy" that I have commited. He also discredits beforehand a book -which I already bought and I'm still waiting to receive- that might help me referentiate the article. So, if you agree, I want to ask you an e-mail address where I can send you the sources, but without having any interference from this guy. If you don't agree, I'll leave them here with no problems. To give you something to begin with, I know that the book "Sociología Argentina" by José Ingenieros mentions the "blancos argentinos" in the pages 453, 469 and 470 at least. Thanks a lot for your help.--Pablozeta (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estos son los enlaces a vistas previas o citas de libros en los que se mencionan a los AB. See what you can find about these authors and works. Thanks for anything you can do.

[1] Los wichí en las fronteras de la civilización: capitalismo, violencia y shamanismo en el Chaco Argetino. Una aproximación etnográfica. 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. ...”

[2] 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…”

[3] Folclore en las grandes ciudades: arte popular, identidad y cultura. Escrito por Alicia Martín. Páginas 77 y 80.

[4] Our Good Neighbor Hurdle. By John W. White. Page 168.

[5] Crisis and hope in Latin America: an evangelical perspective. Chapter “The Races of Latin America”, page 23. Escrito por 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;… ”

[6] Embodying Argentina: body, space and nation in 19th century narrative. Escrito por Nancy Hanway. Chapter 5, The Injured Body. Page 170.

[7] 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. ...”

Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminacion La pobreza tiene rasgos criollos --Pablozeta (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to wish you Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thanks for everything. You are one of the few kind people I've found here in this wikipedia.--Pablozeta (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day, and good luck for the new year. We'll stay in contact.

By the way, in some days I will check the sources you listed MBelgrano (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Belgrano. I added myself to the project; I offer to translate and/or expand articles on Argentine musicians, singers, songwriters and bands. Maybe you can provide me a link to a list of requested articles. Thanks and Happy New Year.--Pablozeta (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but those days I have been with low energy and it's better to keep the computers turned off, as they suddenly reset at any moment, sometimes even when they are still loading windows back from a recent reset. There are some proposals of articles to write at Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina/Requested articles, and there's also the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina/Vital articles, with some important articles at different Argentina-related topics and their current state of development. If you have no specific idea of which articles need developing or what to traslate, this list can be useful as a guide to select something to work with.

As for the other topic, I have checked that the book "Argentina en marcha" was published by the "Secretaría de Informaciones", which depends of the Presidency. So, it's a government-sponsored book. MBelgrano (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is to notify you that there is a discussion about you at WP:WQA. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my comment on GiovBag's talk page, I sustain my thinking on the matter. If I have violated some WP's policy, do what you consider it is proper to do in such a case. On the vandalism on both his user and talk pages, I think it is quite inadeccuate but I don't know who might have done it. He probably annoyed someone else with his edits in some of the articles on White people.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss it at WQA really rather than here. See you there! Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Secret killer; I'm on your side in this. Don't waste your time arguing with these narrow-minded guys (I have another word, but I can't write here for etiquette/politeness) -i.e. Off2riobod, GiovBag, Andy the Grump, etc.- I have your excellent work and the infobox saved up here and in three more wikis, 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 guys who don't deserve it.--Pablozeta (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but this has gone too far. I am reverting back and if they cite me for edit war then so be it. Secret killer (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahí cité un montón de fuentes en el Noticeboard de BLP; espero que sirvan para probar nuestra posición. Igual el inglés (Andy) y el tano (Giovanni) son re-porfiados; siempre quieren tener la última palabra. Te cuento que yo fui el que expandí White Argentine (pero lo expandí mucho; empezó a atraer demasiado la atención de estos que le buscan la quinta pata al gato). Cuando aparecieron estos tipos, no quise que me llegaran a bloquear por la regla del 3RR, así que mudé el artículo a este sitio, y ahí lo sigo expandiendo y buscando más fuentes. Sí querés y podés leelo a ver qué te parece. No sé por qué causa tanto rechazo, porque lo leo y releo y no hay nada racista ni tendencioso. La última fuente que encontré es ésta, en la que dice que un 63% de los argentinos encuestados se auto-identificaron como blancos.

Espero tu respuesta para ver qué estrategia tomar con estos tipos. Yo había pensado seguir expandiendo el artículo en el sitio alternativo, calladito la boca, y cuando lo tuviera listo y mejor referenciado -para dejar contentos a estos cabezaduras- ahí recién volverlo a poner en esta WP. Pero no sé qué opinás vos.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo: Es un placer. Estoy de acuerdo y es más, me resultó genial tu idea. Creo que tu esfuerzo valdrá la pena ya que estos abogados del diablo terminan cansándose de si mismos (he tenido algunas experiencias con gente que a raiz de pura mala fe se las ha tomado con nosotros en Wikipedia). Desde luego, estoy a su disposición en todo lo que podría ser útil. Saludos y buena suerte, Pablo. Cordialmente, Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo, tienes que ser más prudente y hacer un poco de atención, no escribir en español, siempre hay alguien que pueda entender. Saludos.--GiovBag (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hola gente: Dadas las recientes y actuales guerras de ediciones que se han desatado en los artículos White Argentine, White Mexican, White Latin American y otros similares, debido a la modificación de la política sobre biografía de personas vivas concerniente a etnicidad -que los usuarios Andy the Grump y GiovBag quieren implementar a rajatabla en todos los artículos- propongo:

Solicitar en el Noticeboard correspondiente -aún no sé cuál sería, pero seguro que hay uno- que se revean los alcances de tal política. Creo que todos estaremos de acuerdo que nadie podría afirmar "Ronald Reagan era un Afro-estadounidense" porque tal afirmación salta a la vista como falsa. O también que nadie podría afirmar "Juan Manuel Fangio era de ascendencia croata" cuando es bien sabido que sus padres eran italianos. Pero creo que debe ser revisado que no se pueda categorizar a una persona como "blanco" cuando esté bien referenciada su ascendencia europea y comprobado con una fotografía su fenotipo caucásico.

Bueno, contáctenme a ver que les parece esta propuesta. De ser positiva su respuesta, debemos hacerla todos juntos, para que tenga más fuerza. Gracias por su atención.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article White Argentine is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent_canvassing_by_User:Pablozeta. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to get yourself blocked? Ignoring this won't make it go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the above warning, you have continued to canvass. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent canvassing by User:Pablozeta and explain why you should not be blocked for violating our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo:

No lo dudes. Aunque no tenga sentido alguno, el tema de nuestra étnicidad como mayoría de europeo-decendientes es y probáblemenea será uno de los puntos mas contenciósos en Wikipedia. Como comprenderás, vivo en los Estados Unidos (mis padres emigraron cuando yo era muy niño aún, y en época de la hiperinflación Alfonsinísta), y habiendo tenido muchos conocidos y colegas de otros países latinoaméricanos, me acostumbré a un cierto resentimiento hacia nosotros por parte de (algunos) de ellos. Claro que, también están los insensatos y los hipocritas. Nuestros sufrimientos son universalmente conocidos (incluso entre gente que no tiene la menor idéa de nuestra historia), y eso, entre alimánias, siempre se malinterpreta como una condición de presa fácil, o chivo emisario, así en Wikipedia como en la vida, por supuesto.

Tenés razón: estoy acostumbrado a esto, pero sabés que? Respiro hondo, me tomo un mate, y tarde o temprano (siempre ayuda descansar), sigo. Justamente, que nos cansémos y nos desilusionémos es lo que quieren aquellos que se las toman con nosotros. El artículo en cuestión será redesignado "European Argentine," y sobrevivirá por su amplia selección de fuentes (muchas de las mejores, tuyas), por tratarse de 30 millones de personas (y por lo tanto su notabilidad), por el largo precedente establecido con otras páginas sobre similares colectívidades en otros países, y por lo absúrdo y caprichoso de los mismos argumentos de quienes cínicamente lo quieren borrar (gracias, señores!). La administración de Wikipedia concurrirá que este articulo provée al lector un buen resumen de nuestro contexto y nuestra historia, y que no solo tiene validéz, pero que tambien es fascinante. Ya mucha mala fe tiene con que lidiar el directorio para dejarse amilanar por esos que sin fuentes o vergüenza alguna, insultan la inteligencia de todo el mundo insististiendo que no somos "blancos" porque nos referímos como "europeos."

En el interin, te recomiendo que no le sígas el juego a ese impresentable. Yo sé que no necesitás que te lo diga, pero, como lo dice en su propia autodescripción (por si a alguien le quedaba alguna duda), es un miseráble, y vive para esto. Wikipedia es un esfuerzo colaborativo, pero cuanta colaboración se puede esperar de alguien que se jacta de ser un abogado del diablo!? Hace de la vileza un verdadero deporte intelectualóide, y lo peór es que se crée muy original!! Realmente, su página de usuario de por sí debería haber puesto a la administración sobre alerta, ya que esto de gratúitamente usar Wikipedia como un campo de batalla es un serio problema que viene de larga data.

Amigo, tu colaboración, como la de cualquier persona de fe, es muy valiosa y trascenderá. Más aún porque somos pocos los Argentinos que pudiendo colaborar en inglés lo hace. Cuando pienso en todo lo que ya he hecho aquí, sumado a lo tanto que otros han contribuído para compartir la experiencia argentina en la Wikipedia in English (por lejos la obra de referencia más leída en el mundo), me doy cuenta que vale la pena.

Saludos a Luciana, Tadeo, y Renzo. Que disfruten todos el verano.

Cordialmente, Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claro. Nosotros no molestamos a nadie, y esto es solo justícia. Por favor!

Yendo al tema de artículos sobre Argentina en inglés que brillan por su ausencia, dicen que una foto habla mil palabras, y siempre me pareció por lo tanto que un edificio cuenta mil historias. La Wikipedia en Español incluye una lista casi completa de los edifícios mas notables de Buenos Aires, y me dí cuenta de cuantos faltan cuando me fijé aquí (lo mismo se puede decir de Córdoba, La Plata, y otras urbes, aunque los Rosarinos se hicieron presente, y ya tradujeron la mayoría de las páginas sobre los edifícios notables de esa ciudad). Me he propuesto agregar algunos a la versión en Inglés, y te lo menciono para sugerírte solo un comienzo, ya que hay tantos lugares, hechos y personajes que piden (o pedirían) a gritos que los traduzcan.

Noté que sos oriundo de Suipacha. Debo comentarte que la página suipachense en Inglés es un mero esbozo que habla más de la batalla que del pueblo en sí. Si agregás algunas fotos de Suipacha al commons, podemos completarlo. Te comento que mi mamá se crío en Pergamino, y creo que fue ella, con sus recuerdos e historias de la familia, quien me inspiró a contribuir al Proyecto Argentino (como miembro extraoficial, por que así soy). A veces quisiera créer que si gente como el señor ese supieran cuantos sacrificios hicieron nuestros antepasados para construir nuestra Argentina, sentirían más respeto, y hasta se identificarían un tanto. Quien sabe.

Hasta siempre, Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo, lamento que para usted esta una guerra, que ve las cosas como una confrontacion. Para defender el tu punto di vista, has faltado di respeto a las reglas, has dicho cosas racistas, has presentado referencias no-valida, has hecho confabulación y no te esfuerzas para entender lo que te han dicho. Pero entiendes una cosa. No hay mala fe contro di te, de hecho nadie te bloquea y las disculpas furon aceptadas. Nadie esta contra de los argentinos, ni falta di rispetto al tu país. El argumento es simple y no ha sido nunca contestado. No hay evidencia que "White Argentine" es un grupo étnico diferente, como puede ser "Mapuches" o "Guaraní". La antropologia no lo reconoce, ne tampoco l'estado argentino. Las referencias presentadas dicen en modo general: X% de la populacion de la Argentina es "blanca", no dice que sea un grupo etnico si mismo. No es un problema de "biologia", ne si "aparece" blanco o no (cosa discutible, como es esattamente un blanco?, como es fisicamente?), sino de la cultura, de l'etnicidad. Entiendes? Nadie ha cuestionado que la mayoría de la populacion de Argentina es de origen europeo y que llegaron millones de italianos, espagnoles, alemanes y otros. El punto fue siempre otro y usted no lo quería ver. Como sigues escribendo mensajes en espagnol, trato de hablarte español, con mi limitaciones. Saluti.--GiovBag (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Il tuo Spagnolo é abastanzza bene. Maybe we would find that we have some things in common, if we weren't on different sides of this "disagreement" now. Unlike you, I do think that human "races" exist. Applying the same criteria used to classify animals and vegetal species in biology, races are the different varieties of a same species, and they can perfectly intermingle and produce offspring with each other most of the times. So, Whites (Including Semits and Iranids), Blacks, Yellows (including Turkics and Austronesians) and Amerindians would be races within the same species; the Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The problem is that the word "race" has such a bad reputation, that even the United Nations in their official documents adviced everybody not to use it, and use the term "ethnicity" instead. I totally comprehend this action, for bigotry in any way is horrendous (slavery, apartheid, casta system, mita yanaconazgo, Holocaust, or any other form of racism or racialism), but all this doesn't mean that the word race is a dirty word.

Ethnicity is more centered on culture, and not in phenotype, so two very different peoples may share the same culture, like the White Argentines (who mostly created that culture) and the Mestizo/Amerindian Argentines (who adopted it for imposition or because it became mainstream), and they may not share the same race and phenotype. I understood this from the beginning, I'm not a fool. I also know that if the government of my country allowed racial/ethnic categories in our offical censuses, we would have the category "White Argentine" and you would have had to shut your mouth right from the start.

If White Argentine is deleted, I think it'll be time for me to flourish somewhere else, in my own website www.razasdelmundo.es.tl. I should have done this almost a year ago, when Argentinos blancos was erased in the WP in Spanish, but I thought that English WP was more open-minded. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Anyway, I've moved and duplicated my latest version of the article to any wikisite I could find, so my effort is not dead. If no significant study on this matter has been done, maybe it's time someone does it. I'll try to contact publishers to raise attention on this topic and see if I can publish my research with some sociologist or anthropologist (defintitely NOT YOU). As you can see, there are plenty of things I can do; White Argentines are not dead at all.--Pablozeta (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo, maybe you are right and races exist, even if genetic research show that all of us "biologically" belong to same race. In fact, if you are able to demonstrate the existence of the "Argentine White" as an Ethnic group, maybe you've made a contribution to the Argentinian anthropology, but wikipedia is not the place to publish original research each of us. At least, I am comforted to know that you recognize that is your own personal research. Legitimate, but original. Greetings and good luck.--GiovBag (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no; you are wrong. It was NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The article had been here in WP almost three years when I first found it, and many had edited it before I did. My only "mistake" was to consider White synonimous to European and to embrace that POV, and waste time and energy expanding the article. Besides, this is the same phenomenon that caused the formation of the ethnic group White American, and other similar groups; it just hasn't been studied labelling "White", that's all. But well, I have it all well saved up in many sites so nothing is actually lost, just the place of one more copy of the article.--Pablozeta (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're so rude. Maybe we never agree, but you could at least to be more educated. Calling people "intelectualoid scum"[8] and "asshole" [9] is very nasty. Of course I won't report you, even if you deserve it, because it makes no sense. But I must say I didn't expect that you were so boorish.--GiovBag (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:AndyTheGrump. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#A_link_on_User:Pablozeta.27s_user_page. I see no reason why Wikipedia should provide you with free publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this link [10] acceptable on this user page User:Pablozeta? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 05:22, February 11, 2011

I don't speak Italian and that link is NSFW. Is it the users homepage/blog? In that case it is acceptable as stated in wp:UPYES. Yoenit (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming off some heated discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine and various other talk page posts I looked at, it's quite clear there's no love lost between these two editors. Am stating this as a completely uninvolved editor, this post here smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. "White Argentine" was deleted, you won, suggest you move on and not further antagonize other users. -- œ^™ 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding you comment in this diff here - please concentrate on content and not contributors, imo that is a violation of WP:NPA and I have accordingly struck the offending sections. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely thank your for your support in defense of White Argentine, but it was not enough. This site is invaded by intelectualoid scum (Andy the Grump, GiovBag, etc.) so I'll move for greener pastures. I'll concentrate my efforts in my own website Razas del Mundo, and I won't waste them here where they are not considered valuable. Thanks for everything, you have made my Wiki-experience a little less forgettable.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is retarded. I should have been more on the attack but I had much work to do and the whole debate was messy. They had no sound arguments, and Andythegrump's argumentation was embarrassing. Secret killer (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock, you're a genius; you kept a draft of White Argentine to improve it, that's great. If you want, we can work together in the new article. I give this link to a source that might help you add a section on white argentines' self-identification and their access to education and technology: Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminacion. I found it several months ago, but I had no time to process it and add it to the article before it was posted for deletion.

Furthermore, I give you this link to the article as I have it published in another wikisite, although it is still in construction. I relocated the section Estimates at the top, kept the section Distribution, and added the section The Myth of White Argentina, which I think you might find interesting. I plan to add more sections naming actors, politicians, architects, artists, writers, journalists, etc. Basically it is the article as it was before those guys -you know who- began to attack it, with some later additions. I hope you find in these links something useful to be added to your draft.--Pablozeta (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo:

How are you and the family? It's nice to hear from you again. Let me begin by thanking you for noticing my effort to restore this article. It seemed to me a matter of fairness, as communities of European descent in several Latin American countries have their pages (as they should), and I dare say by now that probably none has been through the scrutiny this one has.

This entry will hopefully be an article, and will be named Argentine people of European descent, as they are the people in question. It'll be more squarely grounded on the history and related statistics, and will, of course, include sections on the contributions from Native and African forbears to the lineage of many i this community. This is a distinction articles such as Brazilian people and Cuban people (for instance) exclude, I might add.

It's good to know you're interested in making this an informative page about a subject which, as I can tell you, is of interest to many who come across it. Ron H. Jones and DGG are two administrators who have also recently offered good advice regarding this topic.

Once again, it's good to hear from you, and that you're in high spirits. Let's keep in touch.

All the best,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took the liberty to modify some figures in the article. I changed the percentages and amounts of people because the previous ones included the Arabs; I left them out now. I think that the collage of photos in the infobox can be restored now, for now the label of "Argentines of European descent" does not breaks any rule on BLP or ethnicity. If you consider it does, let's talk about it. Also many other photos and data can be added, as the list of artists in tango, folklore, rock and sports. I added the sections, but feel free to remove them or modify them if you consider something is wrong with them. In any case, let's keep in touch. Ah, the text I added is mostly what I had written before, but now I left out the Argentines of Arab descent, and replaced the phrase "White Argentines" for "Argentines of European descent", but I may have had some "W.A." phrase unreplaced. So, if you find some, please forgive my mistake and replace it.--Pablozeta (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo:

Thank you for all your hard work. What you've added will no doubt help readers unfamiliar with the subject become more acquainted with the community and its contributions to Argentina, just as the corresponding articles to other Argentine communities do. Please remember that although to you and me, this article completes the series that includes Afro-Argentines, Arab Argentines, Asian Argentines, there are those who refuse to see it that way (or merely pretend to, I suspect). I should tell you that the addition of the collage of notables to the infobox will probably be just too contentious for some, and that, even though the fact they are all Argentine (as their sourced articles state) and that they're all of mostly or solely European descent is self-evident, the collage lends itself to too many possible objections and pretexts. If I were you, therefore, I would remove it (and the caption, of course).

I have a lot to do and I'm a little tired, but I'll take a look at it for typos and things like that after a day or two. I imagine you might like to do that as well. All the best, Pablo.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo:

No, I don't think any of the images in the infobox collage violate the BLP and Verifiability stipulations; the article for each guy or gal sources their birthplace, and no one in their right mind would doubt that they are of European descent (their articles problably state as much, and with sources, though not in every case). You know the situation we're in, however: we have one editor (GiovBag) who is scanning every article on Latin American people of European descent, and I can tell you that mentioning somebody without a direct reference to their background will draw some hearty protest from him. By the way, he's right: none of these articles about white people or those of European descent anywhere should include people by way of examples that don't have a source to that effect, and I wish the scrutiny this page is going through now would be applied to others.

That brings me to our second friend: Andrés el cascarrabia Inglés. This individual doesn't really share Giovanni's objections to unsourced assertions of European descent, for otherwise you'd find him bringing up all these points at the other pages (many of which label such people white without a care); he just wants this particular page OUT, and he'll probably raise all manner of spurious objections hoping to create the impression you and I are racist (as you know, he'll actually call you or me that to our faces). Knowing that, it's especially important we make no unsourced descriptions of people (particularly living people) as being of European descent. I much as I liked your richly detailed description of these people's contributions to music and sports in Argentina, I had to excise those sections, Pablo.

For that I apologize, because even though I grew up here (in the U.S.), I know who all those people are, and I know that no one in their right mind would doubt that their forbears came from Europe (just like yours and mine). Their mention as such must have a source, however, and when you find them, certainly reinsert those sections (I'd limit myself to about a dozen people per section, though).

I am available to you if you have any comments or suggestions, of course. Have a good Wednesday, Pablo.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo:

Hello again, my brave friend.

I wish I could believe there's anything you, I, or anyone else might say that would placate Giovanni or Andrew's resentment over this article; but, it'll never happen.

Anyone who looks at the recent edit history, though, will see that you made substantial additions to the article, and that Giovanni deleted most of it wholesale (without consensus, as always). You're not the one engaging in an edit-war, they are: you're simply restoring the work someone's repeatedly deleting. You have every right to do that as often as you need to, and to file a Edit warring notice against both these clowns if either one persists in disrupting your work.

You worked very hard on expanding and improving this article, and I admire you all the more for that after reading what you wrote in the article's talk page. Give your family my best.

My regards,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pablozeta. Your help will be appreciated at this article. A user is vandalizing the page, deleting large parts of text and erasing an infobox. It is also very suspicious that an anonymous IP is doing the same thing that the registered user GiovBag does. I'm sure he's a sockpuppet. You seem to have more experience dealing with that user. Could you help? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. Consider selfreverting and participating in the discussion on the talkpage.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maunus. I've read your user page and your alleged credentials are impressive. I don't doubt your knowledge on anthropology, but I think you are missing some points here. I see your expertise field is Amerindian culture, languages, etc in Mesoamerica, so I won't even attempt to discuss with you any of those topics, for your knowledge will surely far surpass mine. But we're dealing with White people here; and as I am born and raised in Latin America, there are aspects of the region's culture and racial/ethnic identity that you don't know or you don't understand. I think that you are simply applying your knowledge on anthropology in a contextyou're not familiar with, and so I see things very differently. The concept of "White pople" in Latin America is more relaxed than in the US; since colonial times, a person who was at least 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian could be considered "White" no matter that small degree of admixture. In LatAm, if you have a Caucasian phenotype, European/Middle Eastern ancestry, and you act and dress like an European, you are considered White.^[1] That's the criteria I use to justify the restoration of the photograph.--Pablozeta (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An issue in which you have been involved is being discussed at ANI. go here to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Votestacking_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FWhite_Latin_American.E2.80.8E participate in the discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating WP:CANVASS. Any explanation of why you don't believe your actions violated WP:CANVASS needs to include an explanation of why you did not include GiovBag in your notice, as he was the sole recent contributor that was skipped and the sole recent contributor that tends to remove articles about "White ........". Any admin can unblock when a credible assurance that the canvassing will cease is given. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pablozeta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am being unfairly accused of canvassing; in any message I left in the other users` talk pages I attempted to influence in their decision whether they should vote for "keep" or "delete". I am also being accused of not writting a message to user GiovBag, who was also involved in the discussion; the reason is very simple: we both very much disagreed in previous discussions (in Argentines of European descent, for example) so I dont want to contact the guy not even by written form, thats it. I consider that nobody can force me to contact a person who I dont want to see, not even in pictures. Furthermore, I think that if user Maunus -the denouncer- is so sure that his arguments are so overwhelmingly valid in the AfD on White Latin American, he should not be so afraid that I invite people to participate in the consult. One last point, if I unadvertedly and unwillingly commited canvassing, I consider that an undefinite block is an excessive punishment; it is like life sentence or so. Pablozeta (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your choice of editors to contact is clearly partisan, as explained in the detailed comments below, and the whole campaign is therefore a case of votestacking. In view of the fact that you were reprimanded for a similar transgression a few months ago, the block is entirely appropriate. Favonian (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Not contacting people you disagree with is precisely what you did to bias the results, and the reason that what you did was canvassing. Having the only editor that you contacted that hadn't edited the article be one that had voted "keep" in a related AFD and is known for voting "keep" an extremely high percentage of the time makes it clearer that your list was designed to result in attracting people to the AFD that would vote to keep the article. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, it means until Pablozeta understands why what he did was wrong and agrees not to do it again.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out the obvious: the easiest, and generally best thing to do is to not contact anyone at all about an AFD. If you can't contact one side of a dispute because you find them abhorrent or obnoxious, you can't use that as a reason to only contact the other side.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that you did not attempt to canvass. In addition to Kww, I'm going to add this comment. You contacted Redthoreau, Colonel Warden, Sherlock4000, and Cambalachero all of which have no edits to that article whatsoever. There is no reason to contact them. Though you contacted editors in a seemingly neutral way, that does not mean that you did not attempt to canvass. Take this example. Person A is an anti-abortionist. Person A goes to their "friends" and says: Hey guys. There's a bill tomorrow that will legalize abortion. I want you guys to voice your opinion whether or not you agree or disagree with the bill. "Friends" tend to share similar viewpoints and tend to support other friends. There is a great chance then that the "friends" will support Person A. So basically, it's still canvassing for support but trying to make it more subtle. I haven't looked into the relationship between you and the editors who haven't edited the article at all yet, but what I said previously makes me doubt that you didn't have a motive to canvass. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the other people you contacted, it seems that you wanted to contact the most recent editors. If you were going by this, then you missed a couple people. You contacted IANVS who is the earliest editing editor of the list of editors you contacted. You missed Woohookitty (talk · contribs), Carlosrsj (talk · contribs), Mike D 26 (talk · contribs), BD2412 (talk · contribs), and of course GiovBag (talk · contribs). Any of these editors by themselves have more edits to the article before the notification of the AfD than the first editors I listed combined (Just a bit of humor). To prevent yourself from being accused of canvassing, you must notify parties you disagree with. If this isn't what you were going by, then what were you going by? It would be better if you gave us your selection process. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RedThoreau, ColonelWarden, IANVS and Sherlock4000 all voted keep in the White Argentine AfD. Cambalachero edited the article White Argentine and was also canvassed by PabloZeta to participate in the AfD on that article, although he did not actually participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Looks like my Person A example seems to apply then. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pablozeta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Though I did not mean to canvass, I admitt that my actions can be seen as canvassing from the outside. Having admitted this, I intend not to do this same thing in the future, so it will not be considered canvassing by any other user. I will only request this once, for I'm quite grown up now to be begging like a child. So, whoever the administrator who revises this block, do what your judgement tells you is proper to be done in this case. Pablozeta (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I gave this a lot of thought before making a decision. Ultimately, I decided that your unblock request isn't sufficient. You've agreed to not repeat the exact behavior that led to the block, yet you still deny that it was canvassing (you only say that it can be seen as canvassing) and you don't seem to understand what you did that was wrong. I'm not convinced that you won't canvass again. -- Atama頭 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can I ask any admin looking into Pablozeta's unblock request to first consider this diff, where an IP claiming to be Pablozeta posts apparently in evasion of the block? [11] I think that the IP's edit history is such that it is entirely reasonable to question whether this is indeed Pablozeta - though it could be a sockpuppet of another of the 'white Latin-American' faction (or indeed possibly both?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the IP is the same person, despite their claims; the writing style is much poorer than anything I see Pablozeta posting, including a mix of Spanish grammar with the English that is uncharacteristic. -- Atama頭 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also User_talk:PandP2go - another blocked user, who used the exact same unblock rationale as that above, even though it was irrelevant to either their edit history or block. A confused sockpuppet? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review of that blocked person's contributions gives me no reason to think they are related to Pablozeta. I think they just found an unblock request on a person's talk page and copied it for their own use. -- Atama頭 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. As for PandP2go, s/he may well have just got confused, though this seems odd. However, we are then still left with the question of who it was that posted claiming to be Pablozeta. If it wasn't him, then it was impersonation, by an IP that has been involved in the 'white Latin-American' issue (see the IP's contribution history).Perhaps Pablozeta can let us know whether he is aware of who the IP is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the sockpuppet User:Pablo Zampini who edited on july 24 (therefore evading his block) and also point that checkuser investigations have shown he's also the owner of accounts User:DiegoZampini, User:Giovanni Savarese and User:Rusoargentino [cf. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SVU#.5BLo_que_sea.5D_blancos] . Magister Mathematicae (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on April 2010 he created several sockpuppets to bias a eswiki AFD, leading to his first ban there, other accounts linked to him last year:

• Parmeggiani
• Pablozeta
• Italoargentino
• Suipachense
• Rusoargentino

[12] Magister Mathematicae (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This is a Birthday barnstar! Legolover26 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]