This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Opinoso (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 25 August 2009 (→White Chile). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:27, 25 August 2009 by Opinoso (talk | contribs) (→White Chile)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latin America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |||||
Index
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
 | This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 9, 2006. |
 | This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. |
Moai pictures
I removed the Moais. Easter Island is in Polynesia, clearly not a part of the American contintent. It wouldn't make any sense to have a picture of them in the Latin America article, just like it would't make sense to have a picture of Guam in the North America article or a picture of French Guyana in the article about Europe. Discuss.
Canada
You forget Canada. see Québec
European Population 2
In the section "Absolute numbers", Absolute numbers means: How many people exactly? and calculating the percentage of the White population of Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela, the results are:
Brazil Population: 190,010,647 Percentage of White Population: 53.7% Total White Population: 102,035,717,439
Mexico Population: 108,700,891 Percentage of White Population: 15.5% Total White Population: 16,848,638,105
Venezuela Population: 26,023,528 Percentage of White Population: 21.0% Total White Population: 5,464,940,88
Uruguay Population: 3,460,607 Percentage of White Population: 94.5% Total White Population: 3,270,273,615
So, in the caucasians section reffering to absolute numbers (not to the percentage), the right order is the following; Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 October, 2008 (UTC)
White population in Mexico
White Mexicans are less than 10% that info of European Population is false. The picture of the "mexican girls" is fake. They look more like german girls with some Mexico T-shirts in the World cup 2006 that "white mexican girls". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#People —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're making two different statements. Just because there are 10-15% whites in Mexico doesn't mean that picture isn't of Mexicans... wp:AFG. NJGW (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- False. white people in mexico are less than 10%. So how can you prove the girls are mexicans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- You have not provided a logical connection... there could be less than one percent europeans in Mexico and the picture could still be accurate. You need to read wp:AFG if you are going to continue editing. NJGW (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- A t-shirt with the word "Mexico" does not mean that you are mexican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- We're not relying on the t-shirt, but on the person that uploaded the picture saying that they were Mexican. NJGW (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then it has to qualify as OR. The personal word of a WP'ian is acceptable in statements re: his own race or ancestry, not others'.
- But how hard can it be to depict white Mexicans? Someone should just take a screenshot of a Mexican telenovela! (half-kidding) SamEV (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Original images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." (wp:OI) White people in Mexico is a fact, therefore the image is acceptable. Otherwise every image would be original research. NJGW (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Of course it's a fact that there are white Mexicans. But determining the citizenship of the random people depicted in the picture cannot depend on the word of the Misplaced Pages editor who uploaded it. It simply doesn't work that way. The thing to do is depict notable people, people with articles here, who are known from reliable sources to be Mexican. Or to put it another way, the quote you gave itself explains my point: the citizenship of those unknown people is itself unknown, unpublished. It's not found in any reliable source. Only that Wikipedian is the source. Thus it's an OR piece of info for these purposes. SamEV (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what the guideline says... if we were to follow your method then the only pictures on Misplaced Pages would be the ones of notable people. Look at all the other pictures on this page: how do we know that the blacks or amerindians are actually in Latin America? How do we know the Meztizos are in Guatemala or the salsa dancers are in Cuba? How do we know they're dancing salsa and not actually Whirling Dervishes? WP:OI explains that the core reason behind the NOR policy is not to illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Please state what "unpublished idea or argument" is illustrated by the picture, and have faith that the uploader of the picture knew they were Mexican. The image illustrates a proven well known fact, and that is its only purpose. NJGW (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Of course it's a fact that there are white Mexicans. But determining the citizenship of the random people depicted in the picture cannot depend on the word of the Misplaced Pages editor who uploaded it. It simply doesn't work that way. The thing to do is depict notable people, people with articles here, who are known from reliable sources to be Mexican. Or to put it another way, the quote you gave itself explains my point: the citizenship of those unknown people is itself unknown, unpublished. It's not found in any reliable source. Only that Wikipedian is the source. Thus it's an OR piece of info for these purposes. SamEV (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Original images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." (wp:OI) White people in Mexico is a fact, therefore the image is acceptable. Otherwise every image would be original research. NJGW (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- We're not relying on the t-shirt, but on the person that uploaded the picture saying that they were Mexican. NJGW (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) "how do we know that the blacks or amerindians are actually in Latin America? How do we know the Meztizos are in Guatemala or the salsa dancers are in Cuba? How do we know they're dancing salsa..." Good questions: how do we know?! I submit that there's either a hole in the policy, or that we, and by that I mean "you", are misreading it. The idea or argument in question here is these people's citizenship, btw. But listen, considering that no one seems to question whether Bolivian Indians in a picture really are Bolivian citizens, instead of say, Ecuadorian, whereas they do in the case of white Mexicans, why not go the notables route? You can put away the issue once and for all that way. Just a suggestion. SamEV (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. In fact, you did misread the policy, because it actually states that the claims/info accompanying images ARE NOT exempt from WP:NOR: "Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce origninal research into an article when captioning images." SamEV (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're reading the policy wrong... or in other words I say "all images are original" you say "hole in the policy". Also, AFG is one of the "fundamental principls" of Misplaced Pages, so I'm surprised that you're ignoring it. If you like, we can get put a question in a proper place for the experts to chime in. As for the Indians, how do you know they're not in North Dakota or Alberta? And unfortunately I don't personally know any notable Mexicans, much less have access to a white one so I can take a picture of them... NJGW (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- RE: p.s. I think we're reading this in very different ways... put a question on that policy page's talk section and see what happens. NJGW (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, come on. It's pretty clear that the policy says 'no NOR exemption for captions'. Seriously, NJGW. IOW, I just showed there is no hole in the policy; you simply failed to see a certain part of the policy. This 'ignoring AGF' stuff won't do. If you want clarification for the policy, posting a question on its talk page seems like a good idea. Go ahead.
- "As for the Indians, how do you know they're not in North Dakota or Alberta?" Er, that's my point exactly, man.
- "And unfortunately I don't personally know any notable Mexicans, much less have access to a white one so I can take a picture of them..."
- OK... I meant that you should use a picture of a notable Mexican, such as Vicente Fox. You don't have to know him personally in order to use an image of him in an article. SamEV (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- So are you saying that most of the pictures on Misplaced Pages need to be removed? Check out Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse. How do you know that image isn't of some kids playing in some jereys they bought at the store? It's the same exact issue. The image shows 2 people playing lacross, and one of them is in a Hopkins jersey and the other in a jersey of a team they play against. No original research is presented, only an original image. How about the first image at Test cricket? There's no way of verifying that the caption isn't lying about it being "a test match between South Africa and England in January 2005" other than by believing the photographer. To me the caption in this article wasn't over the line, but I've changed it to try to end the silly circle we're chasing eachother around. I placed a question at the OR noticeboard about the image itself, so hopefully someone will chime in to clarify the image policy in general. NJGW (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- NJGW, I don't know that those aren't non-Hopkins kids. And I don't know that that's really a South Africa vs England match. What do you think that proves, then? Suppose they aren't Johns Hopkins, and that it isn't a South Africa v England match. Then all you've succeeded in doing is identifying other NOR violations. Those are not my images, I don't have to vouch for them. If they violate policy that doesn't absolve you here. It means they'd have to go, too. If most WP image captions violate policy, that's a huge problem for WP to deal with, somehow. I'm here, commenting on this article. That's all.
- But let me point out that the second image is from flicker.com AND has the geographical coordinates of the camera at the time the pic was taken. That info is on the image page. That would place the picture in the right place and time where the match was played. But that's as far as I'll go on that. They're not my images, and I won't cry for them if they're deleted on NOR violations.
- But I'm now quite interested to find out what the reply might be to your question. I'm glad you posted it. I added my comment/question to it. SamEV (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Another user came out against the picture at the Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard. Do you still think that's not enough, NJGW? SamEV (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- So are you saying that most of the pictures on Misplaced Pages need to be removed? Check out Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse. How do you know that image isn't of some kids playing in some jereys they bought at the store? It's the same exact issue. The image shows 2 people playing lacross, and one of them is in a Hopkins jersey and the other in a jersey of a team they play against. No original research is presented, only an original image. How about the first image at Test cricket? There's no way of verifying that the caption isn't lying about it being "a test match between South Africa and England in January 2005" other than by believing the photographer. To me the caption in this article wasn't over the line, but I've changed it to try to end the silly circle we're chasing eachother around. I placed a question at the OR noticeboard about the image itself, so hopefully someone will chime in to clarify the image policy in general. NJGW (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It’s quite amusing to see how such an extensive argument developed based solely on the pictures of those white “Mexican” girls. I find it interesting that this is being disputed and I wonder if the issue would have arisen if the girls were wearing an Argentinean soccer shirt.
Statistically it’s quite reasonable to think that these girls are not part of the vast mestizo majority of Mexico, but at the same time it is not acceptable to discard the possibility that they, in fact, are part of the tiny white minority.
Now I see that the argument of some contributors has come down to the rule of “No original research”. But If we were to follow that logic, then, lots pictures in Misplaced Pages would have to be removed since at least some (if not most) are very hard to verify. That's a rather bootless task to accomplish specially when there are so many others with higher priority.
The OR argument is a slippery slope in the demographics section of any article.
How do we establish the exact nationality of an unknown person?
Do we use pictures from a reliable source such as a newspaper, website or magazine?
Then could be risking violations in terms of copy rights.
The only way I could see not violating any copy rights and while at the same time not being acussed of O.R. is if show pictures of only famous people. But, then again, that might not be a good representation sample.
Take a look at these pictures from the South American article. They would also amount as OR, as would most articles about demographics depicting races or ethnicities of a country. While I’m aware that Misplaced Pages strives for accuracy. I think it’s rather impractical and futile to attempt to establish with scientific exactitude the nationality of an unknow person.
Likeminas (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiny White Population in Mexico? Mexico's White population is about 15%, so out of Mexico's 110 million people 16.5 million are white, so chances of seeing girls like this in many regions, especially in the north is not uncommon, now Chile ony has 5 million whites to Mexico's 15+ million.... so what is your argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/White_Latin_American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t know why you came up with the demographics of Chile, but well, let’s see.
- Mexico’s has 15% white population out of 110 million.
- Chile has 5 million whites out of a population of 16 million. That would be approx. 31% of the total population.
- So yes, Mexico (with the exception of Bolivia) does have a proportionally small white population compared to other Latin American countries, especially if you compare it to southern South American countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, or Brazil.
- However, that’s not my point and I’m sorry you missed it. All I wanted to say is that it’s rather impractical and futile to attempt to verify the nationality of people's pictures within the demographics section of any article, especially when these are portraits of unknowns.
- Likeminas (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the questionable picture with one that’s both statistically more likely to be accurate and taken within the context of a local beauty contest in Uruguay.
Picture information below:
Description: Colonia Valdense, Uruguay
Queen of the 12th Colonia Valdense Celebration
Source: self-made
Date: 09-12-2004
Author: Fercho85
Likeminas (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with you, Likeminas? You created a complete fiasco over spilled milk just because you can't bring yourself to believe that a couple of white girls in a picture are Mexican. If Latin Americans weren't so subconsciously obsessed about race and degrees of whiteness, this problem would probably would not have happened at all.--Unregistered user, 19 March 2009
- All these controversies are stupid and biased. Of course the white population of Mexico is NOT tiny. The problem begins when we try to make black/white distinctions between white, mestizo and indigenous people. If we count the millions of Mexican mestizos of, say, 70-90% European ancestry and evident european features the porcentage of whites would be overwhelmingly higher (at least 30 or 40%). Most of the so-called white Chileans belong to this category. Another important point is that virtually all the images of Mexican people one sees in the media are mainly from Mexico City, which has a very large population of Mestizo/indigenous people. Rarely images from Monterrey or Guadalajara are displayed, that's the reason why people couldn't believe that these girls are infact Mexican (as far as I know they are from Guadalajara and they have indeed strong Guadalajaran features). Mexico is a very heterogeneous place and sometimes it looks more like a continent than a country-state.--Scandza (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
African chilenos
http://en.wikipedia.org/Afro-Chilean
http://papelcero.blogspot.com/2006/03/afrochilenos.html
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr2sVfNxyhU
http://censoafro.blogspot.com/
http://www.tribunadelbiobio.cl/portal/index.php?Itemid=107&id=1555&option=com_content&task=view
http://www.tribunadelbiobio.cl/portal/index.php?Itemid=107&id=1555&option=com_content&task=view
http://atinaarica.bligoo.com/content/view/1021/Puntapie_inicial_al_Censo_Afro.html
Common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors???
I modified/replaced the following ERRONEOUS sentence:
Given that the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean share a common sociopolitical history with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used
My version is as follows:
Given the geographical proximity of the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used
Obviously, the Wikipedist who wrote the former phrase doesn't know enough about Latin America -- I do know because I am a Latin American myself, but anyway I'll try to list a few more convincing reasons supporting my point:
1) Latin American countries typically abandoned their colonial status in the 1810s or 1820s -- the only exceptions are Dominican Republic (in the 1860s), Cuba (in 1898) and Puerto Rico. On the other hand, the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors achieved their Independence in the second half of the 20th century.
2) In Latin American countries the most popular religion is Roman Catholicism. On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors, Roman Catholic majorities are the exception and not the rule.
3) In none of the Latin American countries the African population is the majority (unless you accept the controversial inclusion of Haiti). On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors the African component is paramount.
4) All Latin American countries (except perhaps Costa Rica and Puerto Rico) have a long history of dictatorships extending since the independence until the 1980s. This is not the case in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors.
5) All Latin American countries have a tradition of tolerance for racial/religious/sexual minorities; for example, homosexuality is legal in all Latin American countries, without exception; on the other hand, homosexuals are clandestine and segregated in almost all Anglo-Caribbean countries.
I think that these arguments are significant enough to demonstrate that there is no common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors, therefore the expression Latin America and the Caribbean is due to geographical proximity.
Sebasbronzini (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sebasbronzini, are you 186.18.9.96? If so, please do not edit as an anon IP, if not my apologies. You make a good point. I've previously reverted that change, not because I disagreed, but because I asked for a source. Can you provide one? Than you. The Ogre (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am 186.18.9.96, sorry for my anonymous edition -- As for the source, my answer is the following: since there is no common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors (this is clear if you read the five points above), then the reason for the Latin America and the Caribbean label must be geographical proximity. It's just common sense, and I didn't see the need for a source on that. Anyway, I'll try to find a source, unless another wikipedist comes out with a better explanation for the Latin America and the Caribbean label. Sebasbronzini (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly valid point Sebasbronzini!
Sebasbronzini good point man. Non-Latin Caribbean countries have way more difference than similarity with Latin countries. Even Haiti, which is considered a Latin country despite its strong African-descended population bears much more similarity with other Latin countries than non-Latin Caribbean countries culturally speaking such as having a Roman Catholic majority, achieving independence in the 1800s (in fact Haiti was the first Latin country to do so in 1804), run by dictatorships for most of its history and the like. Fact of the matter is that Latin America should have its own article separate from the Caribbean.
User:Spyder00Boi|Spyder00Boi]] (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Homicide Rate
What I don't understand is how is Homicide the principal cause of death in Mexico when the homicide rate is ony 10%? The article is poorly sourced, there are atleast 5 other latin american countries with a higher rate then Mexico? http://en.wikipedia.org/Homicide_rate Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:CIRCULAR? If you did, you're probably well aware that you cannot use WP as a source itself. Please also read WP:V as articles, especially from entities such as the UN are reliable and more than accetable.
- Please refraim from deleting them.
- Likeminas (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, now it's no so poorly source because I added a report from the United nations delevopment fund for women dated 2007.
- Likeminas (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Find me a recent source that states that Mexico has a homicide rate of 25% and i'll leave your edits alone, but for now please see the fallowing sources http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A//www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf http://www.icesi.org.mx/documentos/estadisticas/estadisticas/denuncias_homicidio_doloso_1997_2006.pdf Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Finding is your job if you're disputing the sources. The first source you list is from 2001-2002, the ones I provided are 2004 and 2007 respectively.
- The second source talks only about Mexico and not Latin America as whole like the reports from the World Bank and UN do.
- I want to assume good faith from you, but it seems to me that you’re over zealous about protecting the image of your country. I hope I’m wrong about that.
- Likeminas (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you have to get all personal about my intentions, that shouldn't matter to you, we all use Misplaced Pages for our own reasons, which shouldn't matter to you, I'm sure you have your own hidden agenda, we are all biased, I know you love you Chile, and you should, just don't judge me. Anyways, I'll keep searching for other more recent sources regarding the matter and will get back to you. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree we're all biased to a certain degree. However, the trick here is to try not bring that bias into Misplaced Pages. While, that might be hard to accomplish it is certainly not impossible.
- Having said that, I apologize if my remarks were taken as judgment on your intentions.
- Likeminas (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
White Chile
I don't know who is the user who keeps including Chile as a "white" country. It's incredible that somebody erases Chile, then a few days the name of the country is back again. There are no sources that claim Chile is predominantly "white". The census there count mestizos and whites together. It makes no sense. Others claim 30% is white, which is not majority either. Opinoso (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).
It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook that does that. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).
I don’t know if you read Spanish but as per Lizcano
Los países que más criollos contienen son Brasil (51%),
Argentina (17%) y, con casi 15 millones, México (8%); en tanto que Colombia y Chile tienen en torno a 8 millones cada uno, así como Perú,
Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica y Uruguay entre 3 y 4 millones.
Translation
The countries with the most Criollo people are Brazil (51%), Argentina (17%) and, with almost 15 million, Mexico (8%); whereas Colombia and Chile have around 8 million each, as well as Peru, Sees and Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica and Uruguay with between 3 and 4 million.
The Chilean population is 16 m. out of which 8 million are criollo, which makes it about 50% of the total population. Brazil is listed with a similar percentage. Should we remove it as well? Likeminas (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Brazilian figure is based on the national census. If there is no "racial" census in Chile, then the figure is based on what? How can people know the percentage of whites in Chile if there's no census? Opinoso (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know and I personally don't care. What matters here is what the sources say.Likeminas (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You should care. Because there are sources claiming 30% of Chile is White. If there are different informations about a subject, then one of them must be wrong. And if there are no census in Chile, then these racial figures came from nowhere. And also, everybody who went to Chile know that no way 50% of the population is White. Not even in Brazil the figure is so high, and Brazil has many more whites than Chile, because the European immigration to Chile was minimal, when compared to Brazil.
We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable. Opinoso (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class geography articles
- Unknown-importance geography articles
- WikiProject Geography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- C-Class South America articles
- Top-importance South America articles
- South America articles needing attention
- WikiProject South America articles
- C-Class Central America articles
- Central America articles needing attention
- Latin America articles
- C-Class Caribbean articles
- High-importance Caribbean articles
- Caribbean articles needing attention
- WikiProject Caribbean articles