Talk:Spaniards: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:48, 24 March 2007

Spain Unassessed

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spaniards article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

New version of ancestry section I

I agree basically with what you say, José, and I agree also with Pinball. I have been insisting on the same things long ago. I am glad that other people begin to see the obvious. It is not about negating anything, it is about being coherent gobally with modern genetic research, and the article right now, especially the genetic section, is not good enough and should be changed, not scrapped. The facts about some lineages like R1b and the Paleolithic contribution is so important in the case of the Spanish that ignoring it or underplaying it can only be the result or either ignorance or bias aand that is not in contradiction with elaborating also on the other minority influences in Spain. It is obviously not about being more or less European than the others, that would be ridiculous, it is just about being coherent with what we see in genetic research.

And about Burgass´ comments, I am sorry, I do not like to use ad hominem arguments, but he is too suspicious. This guy at the beginning did all he could do to negate R1b or even mention it in the article. My conversations with him are archived. Then even earlier he was behind a version that devoted two thirds of the genetic section to elaborate on the North African influence. So I say enough to Burgass, do not trust him. HCC. ---

HCC, you are being unfair. I havent even taken part in these discussions, I only intervened to say that accusing the current version of "manipulation" was going too far.

You have to look at the past discussions and history of the article. I have not done anything in this article except mediating and trying to come to consensus versions. If ever the north african section was big, it was the temporary result of controversy and different wikipedians adding new sources. It certainly wasnt because of me.

It is true that we had an argument at one point, but I seem to remember we managed to come to an agreement and mantained cordiality.

I also think that Jose's post is very insightful and perhaps could be used as a basis for a new consensuated version of the ancestry section (even though the current one was is pretty good in my opinion).

In any case, in a few days I will write out a first version of a new ancestry section and post it on the talk page so that you can all give me feedback and your opinions. What shall we do about that huge list of genetic studies? Should we erase them or find a way of mantaining them? --Burgas00 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- OK, go ahead. Let us see if you can provide a version that has a good relationship between content and form, elaborating in a proportial way from the largest and most important to the smallest, preserving a balance in the amount devoted to each concept. As to the studies, right now it looks like a mess to present dozens of them about one single point that can be explain in a few words. HCC. ---

Ok will try and make it as balanced as possible. Will post it soon. --Burgas00 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very useful and insightful post --User:moon2100

The "Ancestry" section is using the wording "during the period of the reconquest". The Reconquista may be a term used (for ideological reasons) to describe a period in Iberian history. However, to use "reconquest" in English, implying that the Islamic states were somehow 'alien' to the Iberian peninsula while the Christian kingdoms were 'native' to the peninsula, is POV. I think the sentence should be rewritten "during the middle ages." Regards Osli73 01:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grave censura en la wiki en español

Un saludo a todos quería avisarles, que hace tiempo hice un artículo en la wikipedia en español llamado es:Español (etnia) (en pocos momento puede que esté borrada), basada en este artículo y se estableció una votación de borrado alegando que es "fuente primaria"e incluso de racismo (como si dijese que el pueblo español es superior o inferior y ni siquiera se menciona en ningún momento que fuera una raza) en fin pareciera que tuvieran demasiado sensibilizado con el racismo de esa wiki, cuando en la misma infame wiki en español (manejada por una autentica mafia que dice lo que es bueno y lo que no; alejada totalmente de la realidad) me borraron un articulo sobre el racismo de los medios de comunicación. Resulta realmente paradójico que gente que acusan de racismo, censuran artículos sobre el racismo o cualquier tema de etnicidad, solo prueba un botón en el articulo de es:chile se ha perdido un montón de tiempo en discuciones interminables para establecer si la mayor parte de la población chilena es blanca o mestiza (fijense quienes son los verdaderos racistas). En resumen la wikipedia en español es un manicomio, obligando a los hispanohablantes a leer la wikipedia en inglés para estar informados, y en el que pueden leer artículos interesantes como Spanish people. Saludos. --K4zem 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Kazem. Siento decirte que estoy de acuerdo con los censores. En mi opinion, esto de considerar a los grandes paises europeos como etnias es una aberracion producto de la obsesion de los paises anglosajones con el concepto de raza y de la concepcion, en Estados Unidos, de los paises del viejo mundo como entidades etnicas unitarias. Esto es comprensible puesto que ellos son una nacion de imigrantes y se definen como siendo de origen "Frances", "Indio", "Ruso" etc... sin entender que estos terminos no representan una etnia sino un pais que puede englobar varias identidades. Por ejemplo, en Espana uno se puede ser Espanol pero a la vez Vasco, Catalan, Gallego, Gitano e incluso Bereber (en Ceuta o Melilla). Los Franceses son los unicos que se han rebelado contra esta forma de ver las cosas en la wiki inglesa y trataron tambien de eliminar el articulo. Al final se llego a un consenso a traves del cual se explica, en el articulo "French People" el complejo significado de este termino. En este articulo aun no hemos llegado a ese punto, mucho mas interesante, y seguimos en el punto de cuanto de moros somos. Asi de cutres somos :D. De todas maneras, no es una cuestion de racismo sino de pura tonteria. En la wiki inglesa quieren saber sobre la "etnia espanola" y no quieren entender que en realidad no existe tal cosa. No estoy en contra de borrar el articulo en la wiki inglesa, puesto que hay que ser flexible y tener en cuenta los valores de culturas diferentes a la espanola/europea, pero si hemos de asegurarnos de que el articulo no represente los esteorotipos y simplificaciones que suelen ser tipicos de la serie de "x people" en esta wiki.--Burgas00 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¿Entonces que son los europeos?, ¿no son etnias no son nada?, a parecer sólo hay etnias indígenas, y etnias en África y Asia. Lo que veo es que hay una especie de tabú o más bien un eurocentrismo. Los europeos que sus formas de vida y cultura no quieren que se estudie etnicamente. Es una especie de doble moral, es lo mismo que el apelativo tribu hay tribus africanas e indigenas americanas, pero tribus europeas solo en la antigüedad. Se han empezado a crear articulos por etnología por país en la wiki española, a ver si tambien no la borran, alegando los oligarcas de alla que es racismo.--K4zem 10:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pues los europeos son lo mismo que los Mexicanos o Peruanos: Paises. Como veras no existe una pagina sobre los Uruguayan people ni Dominican people. Pues lo mismo para los paises europeos.--Burgas00 12:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pues sería una buena idea crearlas y para evitar tantas polémicas se pueden un poner un titulo más adecuado como Ethnography of Peru, o esta misma se puede llamar Ethnography of Spain y darle una redacción más generalista del pueblo español como personas pertenecientes a una misma nación, y se evite un sentido racial que pueda levantar suspicacia y como tu mencionas evitar también los estereotipos. La idea es la de no borrar y censurar artículos útiles. En ese sentido eso es lo bueno de esta wikipedia, aquí se puede llegar a un acuerdo para mejorar los artículos, en cambio en la wikipedia en español puede pasar una eternidad y no se determinaría aun si la población de Chile es predominante blanca o mestiza con las continuas guerras de ediciones en el articulo de Chile por ejemplo. --K4zem 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Kazem pero esas paginas ya existen. Busca Demographics of... de cualquier pais (incluido Espana). No se si existira en :es la misma serie.... Si no existe estoy de acuerdo contigo que deberia existir. Suspicacia? En Espana decimos Sospecha :D. De donde eres tu? --Burgas00 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Español siempre ha sido la gente de España, es decir , los europeos, lo de hispano, latino.... eso son tonterias de los gringos!

Faelomx 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Faelomx en español, el original[reply]

¿Etnia española?

Pues yo fui de los que votó a favor de eliminar el artículo de etnia española en la wikipedia en castellano y básicamente porque si estudias el concepto de etnia te das cuenta que no existe, primero de todo porque los españoles no tenemos concepto de etnia. Luego no existe una raza española, la única diferencia con otras personas como italianos o portugueses es el idioma: si un italiano se viene a España sus hijos serán españoles, y viceversa. Luego está el tema de las cifras, que parece que son mayores cuanto más blanco sea el país de Hispanoamérica, así Argentina es el primero en etnia española, lo cual me parece bastante sospechoso de racismo.

Los ingleses, como buenos germánicos, se han caracterizado siempre por sus estudios de etnias, razas y pueblos (véase Darwin), por la exclusión social y el racismo. Muchas de las ideas inglesas fueron explotadas en Sudáfrica, Estados Unidos y en la Alemania Nazi. A diferencia de la tradición germánica, en la latina no se han desarrollado estos estudios raciales, que a menudo son racistas, y por eso no son habituales ni hay tradición.

Es cierto que hay etnias, no se pueden obviar, pero no todos los países tienen etnias diferenciadas, ni grupos sociales con conciencia propia. Los gitanos sí que son una etnia, pero no los españoles o los catalanes (que también está el artículo de la etnia catalana), por tanto creo que este artículo no tiene ningún fundamento y no tendría que estar ni en la enciclopedia en castellano, ni en la inglesa. Ah, y si alguien se anima que traduzca la conversación esta al inglés para que se enteren ellos. --Hinzel 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Burgass' new version

Here you have yet another GLOBAL study for Europeans and Spaniards. Again, the interesting fact about Spaniards is that they show one of the highest proportions of Paleolithic European genes (they are called Basque genes in this piece of research), while, surprisingly, the gene flow from Northern Africa and the Near East is smaller than in most of Europe (Smaller does not mean that there is none, of course, and all these influences in Europe come mainly and probably from the Neolithic, when people could not write to record history). The article is long, but if you cannot find these points, tell me and I will help you.

GLOBAL studies made by experts is what we need, as I have said one hundred times. To try and use individual studies without looking at the big picture in genetics is manipulation ( Shrewd or devious management of information, especially for one's own advantage or point of view). I hope that you already understood it and we can write a rigorous and scientific article, not just a bunch of superstition and stereotypes.

See here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361

HCC.

Thanks HCC. Could you find some info on haplogroup H? It is of Mesolithic origin right? What was the paleolithic Mtdna MtDNA haplogroup then? Sorry Im taking a bit longer than expected. I am abroad right now.

Yes please tell me where I can find them.

Btw I have found this article which suggests a post neolithic diffusion of E and J in Sicily and Iberia. It is also quite long. Have a look at the figures. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965

What do you think of structuring the section in 3 parts: paleolithic, neolithic and post neolithic influences?

--Burgas00 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

Right now I do not have time for much, but I agree with your proposal of restructuring it in those three parts, wrapping it up with a conclusion. HCC. ---

here I am back. See:

The main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners, with average values greater than 35% for both these parental populations, regardless of whether or not molecular information is taken into account. The lowest degree of both Basque and Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% in Spain and more than 60% in the Balkans.

This is all from the source I mentioned above. Look at Southern Spain (S), very interesting figures, are they not?

More interesting stuff from the same source: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04

More interesting stuff:

1 2 3 4 6 7

HCC.

Hi HCC,

Could you elaborate a bit. I dont quite understand your point.

You mean that proto basques and Near easterners share the same origin?

thanks

--Burgas00 22:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this Oxford article:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361

What it states is that Europeans are basically a mixture of Proto-Basques (Paleolithic population) and Near Easterners (Neolithic Population). There have been smaller contributions in historic and prehistoric times (North Africa and Asia "Refered to here as North Eastern Europe"), but those two components, in different degrees according to latitude, form the basic genetic make-up of most Europeans. In the case of the Spanish, the article states that they have the largest Paleolithic (Proto-Basque) components in Europe, along with other Western Europeans, and followed closely by the British and North Italians, although the Near Eastern component is also significant.

You can see that both in the map and in the table provided:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

I have cut and pasted also this part:

Regression Analysis

In figure 3, no significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest, seem to have been limited or very limited (Simoni et al. 1999; Bosch et al. 2001). By contrast, when a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests is applied, admixture from North-Eastern Europe and from the Basque area are significantly associated with the distance from the populations of interest (see fig. 3), with a decrease, respectively, of 30% and 35% every 1,000 km, in a range of 2,000 to 2,500 km from the barycenter of the parental samples.

All very interesting and Myth shattering. It is only this way, looking at genetic evidence globally and in context, that things can be explained properly, with a global view of Spaniards in the European context in an article elaborated by specialists backing it up with about 70 pieces of research. Up to 2004 no other global work of Europeans and Spaniards has been carried out that bears any comparison, with the obvious exception of Cavalli-Sforza (Not that I know of. If you know of other global studies, please advise). Now the Genograhic Project, that is still going on, is only bigger, among other reasons because it takes into account the entire globe, and you can have a look at it any time.

I think I should also cut and paste this:

We inferred past admixture processes in the European population from genetic diversity at eight loci, including autosomal, mitochondrial and Y-linked polymorphisms.

Just to point out that this piece of research is based on different aspects of our DNA, not just the Y-Chromosome.

HCC.

Ok. The thing is that ,maybe Im undersatnding the maps incorrectly but, it seems to show swedes and fins as among the most "near eastern" populations in europe. Am I correct?

In any case by your contributions Im starting to understand that Jose's post seemed to be very accurate and should be used as the basis of the section. In the sense that Iberians recieved among the smallest neolithic influence from outside Europe and among the largest post neolithic influence. Do you agree?

Maybe neolithic influence decreases on an east west geographical pattern whereas post neolithic influence decreases on a south-north pattern on the continent.

--Burgas00 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article does not say that the Spanish received more post-Neolithic influence than Neolithic influence. It just says that it received less Non-Basque influence. In fact, Near Eastern influence is bigger in the North of Spain than in the South, probably because the migration route was basically by land in Neolithic times. Migration by sea and through the Straight of Gilbraltar seems to have been very limited. I post this comment again:

In figure 3, no significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest, seem to have been limited or very limited (Simoni et al. 1999; Bosch et al. 2001). By contrast, when a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests is applied, admixture from North-Eastern Europe and from the Basque area are significantly associated with the distance from the populations of interest (see fig. 3), with a decrease, respectively, of 30% and 35% every 1,000 km, in a range of 2,000 to 2,500 km from the barycenter of the parental samples.

As you will underestand it makes a clear reference to Spain, and again, North African influence seems to be bigger in the North than in the South. Neolithic?. Otherwise it seems difficult to explain.

Something else is that we assume, taking history into account, that some of the Near Eastern and North African influences in Spain comes from the more recent Arab-Berber invasions, but we cannot forget how these influences are present also across Europe, even with clearly bigger values. And there is an important conclusion: that Genetic exchanges (not cultural ones, of course)across the Mediterranean, and especially in its western-most part (Spain, of course) where the geographic distance between continents is smallest seem to have been limited or very limited, and I am just quoting the article.

For the Finns there is a detailed explanation in the article. In fact the influence is Asian (North Eastern European called here). But that is not our point of interest here and I do not want to drift. I think we have enough to concentrate on here with the Spanish article. HCC.

Ok cool, but why is indoeuropean influence called "near eastern" in the article? Wouldnt that include carriers of Haplogroup R1a? It doesnt make sense to me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_%28Y-DNA%29

I feel there is a certain relevance in the sence that if all but paleolithic people are considered extra european, we would come to the logical conclusion that Iberians are amongst the most European and Poles,Fins and Swedes among the least European because of their indoeuropean origin.

By the way what is your opinion of the following article?

http://www.upf.es/cexs/recerca/bioevo/2003BioEvo/BE2003-Plaza-AHG.pdf

I am delaying the draft of the new version untill you and me agree pretty much on everything:). Im also kind of on holidays outside the country now.

--Burgas00 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term Indo-European is basically used in linguistics. In genetics it is never used. In fact, speakers of Indo-European languages belong to many different genetic families, from Europe to India. It has been speculated that it may be related to Hg R1a, but geneticists rarely go into those discussions, they stick to genetics and in this study they take into account 8 different loci, not just the Y-Chromosome.

As to the comment about being more or less European, I do not think that we should put it that way, it is just about being more or less of Proto-Basque or Near Eastern origins, but both are part of the European genetic landscape. The relevant thing about Europeans is that they have much more in common with Near Easterners than most people think.

As to your article, I have to take a look at it, but I think it deals with the North African influece in Spain. Remember that the fact that it seems to be limited, or very limited, as the Oxford article says, it does not mean that it is non-existent. The thing is that it seems to be smaller than it was believed. On the other hand to think that there is none would be ridiculous. Bear in mind that the Oxford article has taken into account many of those articles and has obtained a weighted average.

Take your time with your draft.

Now I have a username. I will not sign as HCC anymore. Veritas 15:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HCC wrote:

"Something else is that we assume, taking history into account, that some of the Near Eastern and North African influences in Spain comes from the more recent Arab-Berber invasions, but we cannot forget how these influences are present also across Europe, even with clearly bigger values. And there is an important conclusion"

This is not exactly true.

An example:

Y-chromosome Haplogroup E3b (I think its in light blue on the hapmap) is, as you know, divided into three subclades E-M78, E-M81 and E-M34 as well as the paragroup E-M34.

E-M78, is more common in Europe than in North Africa or the Middle East. It is most definitely a European marker which is almost as ancient as E3b itself. It most likely arrived into the Iberian and Italian peninsulas from the north.

E-M81 has the lowest variance and a compact network, indicating either its relatively recent origin followed by expansion or its recent expansion after a bottleneck. In Europe, this clade is restricted to the southernmost regions, such as Iberia and Sicily, and the absence of microsatellite variation suggests a very recent arrival from North Africa.

I don't want to get into an argument about this but I simply wanted to make the point that the Hapmaps you present are much too simplistic and are not a reliable guide in explaining genetic relationships across the Mediterranean.

To the anonimous user above. I have not only presented hapmaps, which are of course based only on the Y-Chromosome and the Mitocondrial DNA. Hapmaps are very important to trace the ancestry of people, but I agree with you that more genetic loci are necessary to have a global picture, that is why I have introduced the Oxford article, that takes into account 8 different genetic loci. That article is the most complete one that I have found on the global genetic make up of Spaniards and other Europeans. If you have another, please present it here, it would be very interesting to know them. As to the more recent North African influence in Spain, there is no doubt about it. I do not know why I have to repeat this part so often. In the Oxford article there you have the values for the North Afracan influence in the European context (a weighted average obtained from multiple pieces of research, not just one). To take things out of context is what is misleading, and I have said it several times and that can be understood by a child. In the case of Spain, the values presented do not make a difference between more recent or more ancient DNA, but obviously some of it, or probaly an important percentage of that North African DNA comes from more recent times in the case of Spain. I hope I have made myself clear this time. Now I am writing under the name Veritas et Severitas (Latin for Truthfulness and Rigour). Veritas et Severitas 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, made change. Now I think the Historial Background section needs a small change too, about the earliest inhabitants of Spain having arrived there just 4000 years ago etc. When I have time I will come up with a proposal, if somebody else does not do it. Veritas et Severitas 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version proposal.

Well, here I have my proposal for a new version of the genetic section. It should be pointed out that we are talking here of a genetic section. From the point of view of culture, language and religion, the Spanish are a European Mediterranean and Latin people, but this aspect belongs in the cultural placement of the Spanish, which is so important or even more than the genetic aspect, but it should be elaborated outside the genteic section. But now let us go step by step and concentrate on the genetic section. I think that this version is most rigorous with the genetic placement of the Spanish, according to the global genetic evidence available:

The preponderance of European Paleolithic Haplogroups in Spanish men indicates that they may be descended primarily from the earliest paleolithic peoples thought to have colonised Iberia and the rest of Western Europe. There are thought to have been three separated pockets of human habitation in Europe during the last major glaciation (the end of the Paleolithic and the Pleistocene), on the Iberian peninsula, in the Balkans and in the Caucuses. The Y chromosome haplogroups from these populations are thought to correspond to R1b (Iberian or Basque), I (Balkans) and R1a (Caucusus). These three haplogroups occur all over Europe, but their frequencies are not spread uniformly, R1b occuring most often in Iberia and Western Europe, as is evident in Haplogroup maps: [1]

More recent Neolithic and historic peoples have also contributed to the Spanish genetic pool, from Neolithic agriculturalists to Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Visigoths, Arabs and Berbers, but their contributions seem to have been limited, as can been seen not only in Haplogroup maps, but also in global studies that take into account more genetic loci: [2] [3] [4]

Veritas et Severitas 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Veritas. Sorry I didnt get to do a proposal myself. Just got back. It looks pretty much ok to me. Lets leave it here for a bit to see if anyone has anything more to add/comment... Im highlighting it. Could you explaing to me what Avg, X squared etc... means on the source you have brought up?

Thanks.--Burgas00 11:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Burgass. I am glad that we agree on this version. Let us wait a couple of days, as you say, to see if other people have something to say. As to your questions, see the section "Materials and Methods". It is very interesting, though complicated, but I think you can obtain there a lot of the answers that you are looking for. In any case, if you are interested in the origins of Europeans, not only Spaniards, read the article in detail and several times. The findings are most interesting. Veritas et Severitas 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made the change. Now I think that the Historical Background section also needs some minor changes, like the first inhabitants arriving in Spain just 4000 years ago, etc. Maybe someone else wants to revise that, otherwise I will do it when I have time. Veritas et Severitas 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree with the version more or less, although I think that the Hapmaps and the other source should be included in the same paragraph since they are pointing out the same thing: The importance of the paleolithic component. --Burgas00 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the user who erased the 2 other sources. One cannot lightly erase 18 genetic studies as you have done (even though I support creating a new version) and then add 3 links to the same study of your choice.!--Burgas00 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Burgass, the link with the percentages is the most interesting one. If you want to erase links (I do not see why) erase the others and leave that, because it is the most valuable and if you read the article it is very hard to find Veritas et Severitas 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one you want to keep is the most difficult to understand, as you admitted yourself when i asked you to explain it to me!.... better leave the main article and the map to give a general idea of the share of paleolithic component! The link to the main article definitely has to be kept but three links to one source is definitely too much. We should also think of finding a way of incorporating at least a couple of the other studies we have erased...

I also wanted to ask you if you could find a global study on Basques which could be included in the sentence which mentions them. As for the Canarians, perhaps their genetic make up should be mentioned too since they make up nearly 5% of the Spanish population. I recall there was a study on them in the former version... What do you think? --Burgas00 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Burgass, leave it like that. Anyway, I would not change much of the article. I think it is short and concise. We may end up making it longer and longer again, and right now it makes reference to the main points and to the secondary points. On the other hand I think there are other points in the article that could be done better as I have already said, though I feel too lazy to engage them now. In concrete the traditional theories about the origins of the Iberians, in the Historical Background section, are more than dead now.

As to using partial studies you know that I am against. They are all subject to manipulation. Just see this site: http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/spain.htm It is all full of the kind of partial studies that have been mentioned here before. I do not want to go over the same issue again. Right now the sources are global and no one has been able to provide global sources that contradict these, so it should stay like that.Veritas et Severitas 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you mean by partial studies. Why can only studies which refer to the paleolithic element be included? Is this not a form of POV pushing? It seems to me equivalent to denying the Spanish/European element (or sources which point to it) in Peruvians, Mexicans, or Bolivians because the Amerindian element is predominant. I refuse to click on those links to neonazi sites and what they say or do not say should be irrelevant to us. For me ancestry is only interesting insofar as it helps us understand history. In this sense all aspects are interesting, big or small. You should not worry about manipulation of information.... Even a study which shows low levels of Guanche genetic markers in general iberian population is interesting since it tells us about the extent of the enslavement and deportation of the native people of the Canaries to the peninsula. We should rise above racist positions not engage in them ourselves, Veritas.

Just some food for thought.;) --Burgas00 11:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RELIGION

The average of Roman Catholics is not correct. Nobody belief that there is more than 80% or even 82% of self-considering Roman Catholics. Spanish wiki version on this subject is much more accurate.

Frequency of R1b

Here is some interesting info on the frequency of the R1b haplogroup in Iberian populations. I dont think an average for the whole region has been established.

Estimated average for whole region: 61%

Basque Country: 89%
Catalonia: 75.1%
Castile: 52.4%
Valencia: 54.8%
Cantabria: 58.4%
Galicia: 63.1%
Leon: 61.5%
North Portugal: 53.3%
Malaga: 42.5%
Cordoba: 55.8%
Cadiz: 53.5%
Huelva 59.1%
Seville 60%

Over 50% of haplogroups in most regions in Spain seem to be R1b, and very few regions seem to be below the 50% mark (Malaga is one). Nevertheless, there is a clear pattern in the sense that only certain northern regions (Catalonia, Basque country, Leon) seem to have frequencies above 65%, most hovering around 55%. The paleolithic element seems to be the largest in all of the Iberian peninsula.

This seems the most recent and detailed article on y-chromosome lineages in the iberian peninsula: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf

--Burgas00 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting article. Haplogroups are very important to trace the ancestry of people, but still it is much better and realiable to use global studies that take into account more genetic loci. Up to now, only two have been carried about Europeans, both with similar results. One is the one that I have introduced and whose link is in the article, and which is also the most recent. Still some considerations have to be taken into account.

As to the technique of using just one sinlge genetic marker, read this:

The questions asked in this and in comparable studies are of the type: When did a certain group of people come to occupy a certain area? How extensive was the admixture between them and other groups? These are questions about population history, and they need be addressed considering simultaneously as many independent alleles as possible. Analyses of single or physically linked alleles or haplotypes, no matter how informative they appear to be, are unlikely to contain all the information needed to infer and quantify population processes, and may also, if selected a posteriori, produce biased inferences.

This is in the discussion section of the Oxford article.

Haplogroup J

What is your opinion on the strange distribution of haplogroup J? Have a look:

Basque Country: ?
Catalonia: 4.2%
Galicia: 5.3%
Cantabria: 5.8%
Leon: 6.7%
Castile: 9.5%
Valencia: 9.7%
Seville: 11%
Northern Portugal: 12%
Huelva: 13.7%
Malaga: 15.4%
Cordoba: 14.7%
Cadiz: 17.9%

Does this not imply that this haplogroup arrived by sea, since it is absent in Catalonia and the Basque country? Maybe its related to the Tartessian/Turdetanian or Phoenician period? - I say this because Cadiz is the region with the highest frequency and double digit figures are only found in southern and western Iberia...

--Burgas00 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgass, Haplogroups are one very important element to trace the ogirins of people. If the only thing that we have available is Haplogroups studies, then they are usefull, but obviously if we have more genetic loci, results will be much more precise. As in anything else, the more you check, the better. Anyway, we are in the middle of witnessing the birth of a new science, genetic anthropology, and I am sure that in the coming years more and more precise studies will come to light.

As to your comment, it is really so difficult to know exactly what percentage of that comes from Neolithic and what percentage from Tartessians, Phoenicians and so on (right now I think that it is just impossible). On the other hand, the Tartessian civilization borders virtually on the Neolithic. Still, mainstream theory is that after the Neolithic there have not been great migrations, which does not mean that there have not been contacts, which obviously have occurred. Veritas et Severitas 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Tartessian civilisation is not all that ancient and it seems to have emerged around 1000 BC, (although some speculate it is more ancient), about the time Phoenicians started arriving to the peninsula. I think Cadiz (or Gades) was the most important Phoenician city at the time...

What I was thinking was that, normally haplotype J should be more frequent in the East and North Eastern part of the peninsula had neolithic expansion from Europe (Iberians etc...) been its main source... However, its epicentre seems to be clearly the South West.

Any thoughts?

In any case, I am getting more and more interested in population genetics:-) --Burgas00 16:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is a possibility. Veritas et Severitas 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

The difference in the results is, maybe, influenced by the Sample Size:

Basque Country: 45
Catalonia: 16
Galicia: 19
Cantabria: 70
Leon: 60
Castile: 21
Valencia: 31
Seville: 155
Northern Portugal: 109
Huelva: 22
Malaga: 26
Cordoba: 27
Cadiz: 28

Haplogroup I

Addition

A have made a small change in the historical backgroud section, to make it coherent with more recent findings about the first settlers of Spain. Most of the addition I have just cut and pasted from the article Iberians. Veritas et Severitas 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British celts and Spanish northern people

Please,see [5]& [6] --Xareu bs 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here you have an article that deals with the same issue: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

It seems that the Spanish are the Pater Familias of many other Europeans. I said it long ago. Anyway, your comment seems as if Norhthern Spaniards were very different from other Spaniards. That is not the case. See this:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

It is in the study mentioned in the article. As can be seen, the average for Spain (IberiaS) is given for the whole country because there are not significant differences within the country. In the case of Italy, the North and the South are given separately because there seems to be a North/South divide that does not happen in Spain, where the majority of the population seems to be descended from the Paleolithic inhabitants of the country anywhere. Anyway, do not confuse this with Celts. The term Celt was forged in the XVIII century and in any case, this population just represents the ancient population of Spain. Celtic culture and language came later and was acquired in some areas by this population. The Basques, for example, never acquired Celtic language and culture and are the most representive of this population (about 90%). Celtic language and culture worked as a superstratum on this original population at a given moment in some areas. Then ohter languages came too, like Latin or Anglo Saxon. Still, this population continues to be the majority population in many areas in Western Europe, especially in Spain and the British Isles. Veritas et Severitas 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version by Epf

Epf, there was a new version that was agreed upon after a discussion. You have reverted it. You should not do that. The main reason why I do not revert yours is because I think that it is also OK. But we should follow the Wiki procedures. The only problem that I see is in giving precise figures. That is what we tried to avoid with the previous version. We all know that to give precise figures is not easy, in fact it is probably not possible, because according to the sources they vary. They will seem in contradiction with figures in some of the sources that we provide (some of them showing different figures indeed, which is just normal in these cases). So, I will just trim that a bit. I think that people here will agree, since it was like that in the previous version. OK then, in my opinion for this new version, but please, discuss any changes if you want to do something like this again. Ciao. Veritas et Severitas 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats going on? Why the edit war? Veritas I guessed you agreed with my new version since you had not complained up untill now. I dont know why you have reveted it! As for the exact figures, I assume you refer to R1b percentages, we can erase them if you like but they are interesting after all, particularly with regards to the Basques, and your original version also highlights this issue.

Burgas

Well, Burgass, I think my version is better and it was discussed and agreed upon. But since there are three now, and I think getting into a revert war is not good in any case, I will vote for Epf's, so we can be at peace. Veritas et Severitas 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well I wrote the draft version of EPF's version myself some months ago and it was stable until you started complaining about it! In any case the version I have written only takes into account your original complaints while adding more info on contentious topics. It is organised and well written and I cant see what you can dislike about it. I thought it was necessary to include some info on the Basques who, as you know, are the most distinct (both physically and genetically) people of the Iberian peninsula, together with the Gitanos. (no offence intended)

My version is unsourced but that can be quickly solved. The version I wrote originally (EPFs version) is ugly and (in your words) unscientific. The problem with your new "consensus" version is that it limits all discussion to the Paleolithic component, which I feel is what you really want to get across.

I dont want to have bad faith, but, having a look at your user contributions and arguments with other users on this and other articles, I cannot help but suspect that you are not quite balanced in your approach to this topic. You have had discussions with Ismael76, EPF, with users on the English people article, the "White people" article, and with other users and the underlying theme is that Spaniards are not Mediterranean and are similar (if not the same people) as the English, Scots or whatever. This is a valid opinion, I dont want to go into it, but it seems that your desire to get this across is a bit too ardent to the point that your versions become, in my opinion, NPOV.

I am also interested in population genetics which, as you say is a new and fascinating science. But we must not attempt to use it to prove or disprove the Europeanness of a particular people, much less your own (I have read your are a Basque Spaniard). You know as they say, Excusatio non petita...

Please dont take this as an ad hominems, simply an invitation to reflection. --Burgas00 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgass, do not get offended, but we do not have to agree. I do not agree with your version. It seems that you not agree with mine. I think that your versions have an Afrocentric trend. This one devotes about 50 per cent or more to the African Influence (The original one about 3/4), which is one among diverse minority influences. If someone would come here devoting 50% of the space of the article to the Visigothic influence my position would be exactly the same. Often Nordicism and Afrocentrism are two sides of the same coin. I am not accusing you of Anfrocentrism, maybe it is just that you do not have a good sense of proportion.

The Atlantic question is discussed in other places. I have been insisting on it because I know it well. We are going to see how long it requires to be more than clearly demonstrated here. For some of the leading population geneticists it is more than clear. Anyway, do not confuse things. Spaniards do not have any significant influence from Northern Europe. It is just the other way around. But we are discussing it in another place, as I said.

In fact we are organizing a discussion group about the subject, reading and constrasting two important books that have been recently published, Blood of the Isles, By Brian Sykes and Origins of the British, by Oppenheimer. They have been just published, so we are even waiting for them to arrive. It is a serious group. We need neither Nordicists nor Afrocentrists. Just people who want to analyse two important books. If you want to participate you are welcome, but I do not think that attacking each other is the way ahead. Veritas et Severitas 21:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree the with content, but not with the space. Maybe it is because I am mainly a linguist by education, but I think that anyone can see it. You devote more lines to cover one single minority issue than with the rest of the issues, including the main issues.

Try please to adequate it to a simple principle in Rhetorics: Proportion. Then I may agree with your version and if Epf or other users do not have anything against it we can post yours.

Then, as I said, precise figures should not be mentioned in the main body of the article. As you know better than me we can just come up here with a lot of studies with discrepancies as to exact figures. I avoided it in my version, that you agreed with, and now has been reverted without previous discussion. You see. I am not even fighting for my version, which I think is the best, but I want to come to an agreement with both you and Epf and leave this issue at peace.

Then you could source it. The present version has important sources. Veritas et Severitas 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am happy that you agree with the content. I guess we are at odds over a question of style which is easier to solve!

I dont see in what way my version is "afrocentric". My version starts of by discussing the preponderant Paleolithic influence on the Iberian gene pool, going into considerable detail and then going on to discuss the question of the Basques which are even more Paleolithic in origin than the rest of Iberians. It then goes on to discuss the African influence, which happens to be the second most important influence on the Iberian gene pool after the Paleolithic. Have a look at the maps (fig 2 and 3) of the subclades of Haplogroups E and J in this study: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965

It is clear from these maps that the influence of the Neolithic expansion on the Iberian gene pool was practically nil and that these Haplogroups entered the peninsula primarily across the straights of Gibraltar, rather than from the Balkans as is the case for the rest of the continent. Even E-M78 which is a Neolithic European marker present throughout Europe clearly arrived in Iberia from Morocco rather than across the Pyrenees. The same goes for most of the subclades of J, as we have already discussed.

Furthermore, my version mirrors the questions which have been the focus of interest of geneticists over the past few years: the Basques and the North African admixture. The preponderance of the Paleolithic element is clearly explained and highlighted to the point that no confusion is possible.

I understand your point about space, but it is a bit too much to consider that because Spaniards are 60% Paleolithic, 60% of the space must be devoted to discuss this. Issues can be given a bit more space because of their complexity, interest etc... Plus you will notice that in my discussion of the african influence I am in no way exaggerating its importance or attempting to make it seem greater than it is. I tried to make it as succint as possible while making all the points which I thought would be of interest. As for the Paleolithic element, there is not much to say a part from the blatant fact that it is the most important element in the Spanish gene pool. That is why I included percentages and further geographic discussion, so as to give it a bit more space and highlight its importance. I also put the discussion on the basques second for exactly the same reason.

Anyways, that is the basis of my defence of my version pretty much:-)

Comments?

--Burgas00 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The North African influence is obvious. No one questions that fact.

2. What I do not see is that is is the biggest one after the Paleolithic.

3. The fact that the Neolithic influence was much smaller than in most other places in Europe, does not mean that there was none. There is a big difference between both ideas.

4. I have already seen that article. I think that you have already seen this one: .[7] [8] [9]

What are the differences between those two:

1. Both are from 2004.

2. The Pubmed article speaks of one genetic marker, the Y-Chromosome.

3. The Oxford article deals with up to 8 genetic markers, including the Y-chromosome, Mitocondrial and Autosomal DNA. Needless to say that the study is much larger in scope.

4. The Pubmed gives no tables with percentages to speak about the North African Influence in Spain.

5. The Oxford one gives percentages for Spain (Iberia S) and also for the rest of Europe.

6. The Pubmed article speaks about obvious influences in Spain originating in the Muslim occupation of Spain, which no one questions, but does not make any clear statement as to the degree of that influence in comparison to other influences.

7. The Oxford article addresses the matter directly, and in fact states the following:

In figure 3, no significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited (Simoni et al. 1999; Bosch et al. 2001).

I have just cut and pasted it from the article.

Anyway, I think that you are basing your article on just a couple of other articles. The present version covers many more articles and issues, and has links to both articles that we are discussing here plus many others. It also deals with the North African question well, including links to a lot of articles covering that aspect. It is also a compendium of different contributions. So I think it is good such as it is and it should not be changed. It is not my version. Mine was much shorter. It has been introduced by Epf, not by me, but I must concede that it is a good one and I agree with leaving it. So, between mine, Epf's and yours, I choose Epf's. Veritas et Severitas 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how can there be no correlation between north african admixture and geography? It is a ludicrous statement which also contradicts the maps I have shown you. Perhaps it is because it is a statement taken from studies from 1999 and 2001 when population genetics was in its infancy. What is the meaning of "North African" and "Near Eastern" admixture? I believe the global study you show uses certain concepts in ways which are not common nor familiar to most wikipedians.

I also wanted to ask whether Celts and Vikings are (or were) a Neolithic (Near Eastern) people. Celts were not carriers of R1b (I think). Where and when did they arrive from originally? If it is so, shouldnt all this be clearly explained when talking of Near Eastern/North African. admixture?

I dont like the structure of the version. Maybe it could be divided in 2 subsections. One general one saying that Spaniards are Mediteranean blabla Romans, Visigoths, Arabs etc... plus whether they are homogenous, and then a second subsection which deals more with genetics.

I find this issue irritating. I know that if we let it as it is, someone will come in a few weeks or months and want to change everything. --Burgas00 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the version is good, and it is not my version. I see no reason why we should post yours. Also, if you want to criticise genetic studies, use reputable authors. Our opinions, the opinion of my brother or my cousin are all very respectable, but you know, this is an Encyclopeadia. I think we have already discussed this issue more than enough. Besides, the section is about genetics, not about the names and concepts of historic peoples, which is covered in other parts of the article. I think we have already said it all and as you say, it would be irritating to go on repeating ourselves. I hope I continue seeing you in other places. Veritas et Severitas 23:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Lets forget about it. Guess we are all bored of discussing this now. --Burgas00 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards an ethnic group?

It is difficult to say what a country is. Some use it for the sovereign state they live in, some others for what is sometimes called a 'subnational entity'. Both are acceptable, IMO. But it's usually been clear that an ethnic group is not the same as a sovereign state. Actually, we all know that few countries in the world can be seen as almost of one single ethnic group. Iceland, perhaps. But Spain?

Spanish people we are an ethnic group, just as other group of people with some similar appearence and roots.

At first, as Spanish I am I would like to say that it's not correct to mix the spanish ethnia with south americans (note that a lot of people from Argentina are procedent from italia, poland, and some eastern european countries. Also we¡re very different, just compare a pic of any spanish (like Antonio Banderas) with any southamerican (like...Evo morales) you would see that the colour of skin is very different, and also are the forms of faces , etc.

First, nobody knows exactly which is the birth date of Spain: 1479?, 1492?, 1512?, 1516?, 1707?, 1714?, 1978? But one thing is sure. Several 'ethnic groups' lived "together" in the Iberian peninsula and several 'ethnic groups' still do now. Spain may not be as heterogeneous as India, but it definitely isn't a single ethnic group, and the estado de las autonomías system is clearly not due to a unitary vision of the country. We know that there are several languages spoken in Spain, and that is a powerful factor of differentiation. But even those who speak the same language feel factors of differentiation that are not simply territorial or administrative. Castilians, Andalusians and people from the Canary Islands may speak the same language and feel nationally Spaniards, but they see themselves as belonging to different ethnic groups for a number of legitimate reasons. Spanish gypsies have clearly and traditionally been regarded as a distinct ethnic group within Spain since the 15th century, even if they don't speak their own language any more. Spaniards are the citizens of Spain: a population. With many things in common, of course, but not a single distinct ethnic group. Why Spaniards and Portuguese then as different ethnic groups? We all know that Galicians are much more related to northern Portuguese than to, say, Catalans. I really think this article should change many a thing and be more accurate, because this is not quite scientific or objective. Actually, it's not quite serious.

SPAIN WAS FOUNDED IN 1479, with the marriage of the Catholic Monarchs (Los Reyes católicos) and since then, it began the conquest of some parts on the world, forming the Spanish Empire.

This makes no sense. Pick Antonio Banderas! and Iñaki Urdangarin...they do not seem from the same country. Silly argumentations like this shouldn´t be taken serioulsy. If you chose individual by individual, you may find any kind of Spaniard, from a Swedish style to a Moroccan fashion. first of all: Spaniards are not an ethnic group,since, as everyone is aware of, there are many regional differences, showing the many origins of the current population. And talking about the colour of Evo Morales´ skin (who is an indian, by the way, not a criollo) is plain racism. There is no Spanish ethnic group, and even you may doubt that there is a Spanish people as a single folk. Other countries, like Portugal, are not an ethnic unit, but they are a people, a gens. This is what we must talk about. If anyone is darker of fairer, well, it must be water under the bridge.--Xareu bs 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the genetic reports cited you'll see that Spaniards are on the whole quite a homogeneous people, though they make clear there are regional differences. The writers also distinguish Spaniards from the peoples of Latin America (mestizos, etc) - though perhaps this is not sufficiently clear in the box. As for appearances - well I'm swarthy and tan easily yet my sisters are "Germanic" and there is enormous range among cousins and ancestors. Such apparent "large" differences are the result of just a few genes that affect colouring. My main gripe is with the info box that shows Arabs as a related people - there is a small but discernible Berber influence - but Arabs - who are lumped in with the Basques, with whom "Spaniards" as a whole do share a very strong genetic relationship, is just plain misleading, especially in the light of the studies cited in the Ancestry section. Not even the Italian people article cites "Arabs" (who are an extremely heterogenous group, any way) as a related people - and yet genetically there is a stronger case for it than for the Spanish. Of course, one's ethnic identity is more than genetics - just look at Northern Ireland and the Balkans as two examples. 58.84.109.44

I guess the idea of Arabs as a related group is that there are strong cultural and historical links with the Arab civilisation. Although, as you say, the genetic imprint on Spaniards due to this period of history is more North African than Arab/Semitic, it arrived in Spain as part of the Arabic expansion and civilisation. The language spoken in Muslim Spain was Arabic not berber, as can be seen by the number of Arabic words in Spanish (thousands) compared to the number of berber words (a handful). The genetic imprint on Spaniards may be mainly north african (see Hg E-M81 for example), yet the cultural imprint is clearly arabic.

Italy, the Balkans and Eastern Europe may have recieved large population movements from the near east (carriers of Y-chromosome Hg E and J) in prehistoric times, in accordance with the Demic diffusion model of neolithic migration, however this alone is not enough to consider the populations of these territories a related ethnic group of the Arabs! --Burgas00 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that language is part of culture, but even if there are thousands of Arabic words in Spanish it's still a Latin language - and Spaniards are not Arabs - and the genetic imprint is not mainly North African - not even close.

---

When I said mainly North African I meant the genetic imprint of the Muslim period. It is mainly north african as opposed to mainly semitic. Don't worry, no one is claiming that Spaniards are Arabs :)--Burgas00 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly claiming that Spaniards are ethnically akin to Arabs, as well as Jews; which is sheer nonsense. As it has already been pointed out, while the Moors were culturally Arab/Islamic, they still were a distinctly different ethnic group. And while I agree that there possibly was some level of miscegenation between Iberians and Moors (Berbers), the magnitude of it was likely not high and it has been historically been shown that the bulk of these elements were expelled from the Peninsula long ago; following the expulsion of the majority of the Moorish/Jewish populace. Of course, there was/is some small remaining genetic elements of their presence (predominantly confined to the southern most regions), but nothing profound enough to consider the entire Spanish population ethnically related to them. If we were to follow this logic, why don't we, for example, classify Germans ethnically akin to Jews? After all they have been inhabiting Germany (as well as many other central/eastern European countries) for the better part of 1700 years and significant levels of admixture did occur. I don't see why this sloppy categorization is only visible in the Iberian articles, when non-European elements have been present in the many other European countries throughout known history.

Please sign your posts.

Well if this is going to descend into inferiority complexes and who is more or less European I think we should end the discussion right here. --Burgas00 01:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the difficulties faced by the writers of the article - I think it is fair. With its ugly historic baggage, will people desist from using the scientifically obsolete term "miscegenation" - as it implies that the different "races" (another very slippery term, whose usefulness is undermined by ugly politics) are somehow virtually distinct species - a complete and utter nonsense! Thank you for the changes to the info box. Provocateur 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the related ethnic groups section: Sefardic Jews is a great addition. Sepharad means Spain. Those familiar with Spain's history will know that Sephardic Jews have maintained a very close link to Spain. Morrocans is obviously out of place. I think I do not have to explain that, unless we use very open criteria, in which case that part would be extremely long in all the people's articles (it could be a good idea though, but this would be more political than criteria based on ethnicity). Veritas et Severitas 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related ethnic group section.

On the related ethnic groups section: Sephardic Jews is a great addition. Sepharad means Spain. Those familiar with Spain's history will know that Sephardic Jews have maintained a very close link to Spain (still about 25000 Sephadic Jews speak the laguange, based on XVI century Spanish. Sadly younger people are losing it now). Morrocans is obviously out of place. I think I do not have to explain that, unless we use very open criteria, in which case that part would be extremely long in all the people's articles (it could be a good idea though, but this would be more political than criteria based on ethnicity). Veritas et Severitas 03:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Sephardic Jews should stay. As I said, in fact Sephardic Jew means Spanish Jew. There is also the most important group missing: Latin Americans. I am not making the changes but I hope somebody will do them. Otherwise I will do them myself in a few hours. Veritas et Severitas 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I feel Moroccans should stay. Arabs and berbers should go. --Burgas00 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Moroccans would be stretching these concepts too much. Related groups should stay within the so-called Latin peoples. They speak latin languages, most have the same religion and their culture was fundamentally influenced by Rome, aspects that make up the basics of ethnicity. Sephardic Jews are one exception that should also be included. Morrocans, Algerians, Tunisians etc, make up another clearly distinct cultural and linguistic group. Veritas et Severitas 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Spaniards are obvioulsy much more related to other Latin peoples than to Moroccans both culturally, ethnically and lingusitically. Nevertheless, links with Morocco specifically do exist at all these levels. Saying Arabs in general would be stretching it, I agree.--Burgas00 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking about Moroccans (i'd rather be specific saying Berbers and/or Arabs) but since "Veritas et Severitas" is talking about Sepahradic Jews, i'd bring Moriscos. I am just amazed by the categorization Veritas is making (i.e. "Sephardic Jews are one exception that should also be included".). There's another important point that should not be ommitted; Moroccans are a mix and therefore not an ethnic group. So if something would stay it would be Berbers (as some sourced and referenced researches show in the article) and/or the Arabs. It is just like if history and science doesn't prevail in your judgements guys. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a complicated matter. It is true that Moroccans are not an ethnic group but neither are Spaniards really. The basic idea is that the two territories have historic, ethnic and cultural ties (due to proximity) which Spain will not share with Bedouins from Jordan or Yemenis. That is the problem with including "Arabs". Fayssal mentions moriscos and this is a good point. We cant include them either since they no longer exist as an ethnic group, although their descendants still exist both in Spain and Morocco. I vote for Moroccans or Maghrebis generally while also adding Sephardic Jews (many of whom lived outside the Maghreb; in Greece, the Balkans etc...) As for the Berbers, adding them would just complicate matters. The only real tie with Berbers is genetic, but all North Africans (Arab and Berber speaking) are of mainly non-arab i.e. berber, ethnic origin. Canarian Spaniards, on the other hand, are related to the Berbers specifically and independently of the Arab-berber expansion in the region, but they are an exception. I hope my position isnt too confusing.:-) --Burgas00 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not going to engage in a edit war about this, but to include Moroccans is so random!. Then someone has deleted again Latin Americans. That is the funniest part. There is no single group in the world that is closer related to Spaniards than Latin Americans. Sorry, no offense meant, but I think some positions here are not very serious and that is the reason why I am growing tired of these people's articles. Veritas et Severitas 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, nothing is offending more than the paradoxal argument you are offering! The intro states the following:

The Spanish people or Spaniards are the ethnic group or nation native to Spain, in the Iberian Peninsula of southwestern Europe. Substantial populations descended from Spanish colonists also exist in other parts of the world, most notably in Latin America.

Paradoxal your argument is as it randomly talks about descendents of Spanish colonists where in the intro's first phrase explicitly talks about natives as well.

Now, who are those natives? A good example is found at Briton. There are broad and norrowed definitions. In our case here, we only present the norrowed one.

You state that There is no single group in the world that is closer related to Spaniards than Latin Americans. Is this a based on your judgement or researchers' ones? Do you have any document that support this claim? Latin Americans is so broad man! To make this clear, you got to talk about "conquistadores" instead of "accidentally" including native Latin Americans as well.

I am not w/ including Moroccans of course. However, i am w/ including Latin Americans unless we specify we are talking about Spaniards who moved to Latin America sometime in the last 5 or 6 centuries!

On the other hand. How would you call people who remained in Spain after the Reconquista? According to the intro, they are so native of Spain from father to grend grandfathers. My point is that you included Sephardi Jews and excluded thousands of other people who stayed in Spain after the Reconquista! Certainly not Moroccans of course but they should have a name at least! If Sephardis are a race than the same is for Arabs and Berbers as ethnic groups.

Unless we are not talking about the Spaniards as being "The Spanish people or Spaniards are the ethnic group or nation native to Spain", your arguments are incorrect.

Conclusion → The thing we need to settle here is not who relates to Spaniards but rather agree or disagree about the definition of the Spaniards as a group. According to the actual intro version, the group includes all the above. If you are ok w/ the intro than many people should be included, if not than i'd agree about that only Romanians and Latins should be included. I am not sure about Nordics though. CHeers -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write those things. In any case, trying to come to a simple consensus. Most people will agree to leave the Romance peoples, the rest maybe controversial and in some cases just out of place. Latin Americans also share the same language and culture. This is not about race, but about ethnicity. Latin Americans, being a heterogeneous and diverse group, still have more in common with Spaniards than the French, the Italians or any other group, from a linguistic and cultural point of view, which are the two main components of ethnicity. In any case, they are already covered in the section "other related people" and in the population section, so maybe there is no need to repeat it here. In short, Romance people would be the most resonable thing, and I guess that most people would agree. Nothern Europeans would be stretching it too much. Following that rationale we could end up including all Europeans, which I think it is not necessary. I think that most people will agree that Romance or Latin peoples make a distinct cultural and linguistic group. As to your other comments, all people who stayed in Spain after the Reconquista, or after the Phoenician, the Greek, the Roman or the Visigothic invasions are one simple thing: Spaniards. I should also say that Spaniard is a broad concept that includes other subgroups such as Castilians, Basques, Galicians or Catalans. In that respect it is close to the meaning of Briton and not to the meaning of English in the British Isles, to use a good simile. Still Spaniards share basic common cultural items and have shared a long history. If we just restrict its history to the present Spanish state, it is one of the oldest in Europe and in the world, and much before the formation of the present Spanish state, it was regarded as some kind of a unit by Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Visigoths and Arabs, including then also Portugal under the terms Hispania, Iberia and Al Andalus. Veritas et Severitas 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree with everyone on this issue. The only reason I favour the inclusion of Morocco is because of the Sefardi jews and Moriscos who went there, taking with them a great deal of Spanish culture and the previous 800 years of cultural fusion. It is clear however, that Spaniards are much more related, in every sense, to Latin Americans than to Moroccans.

In my opinion Spaniards are related, firstly to the Portuguese, secondly to the the latin americans, thirdly to the other european latins and fourthly to the Moroccans/Maghrebis, in that order of closeness. But thats just my POV.--Burgas00 02:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree except for Moroccans. Spaniards and Moroccans belong to two clearly different cultural areas and I have the impression that most people will agree with that. And even in terms of biological ancestry (although this aspect is less important in my opinion to ethnicity than culture and language), although they both have had mutual relationships, still belong to distinct areas. In fact I believe that Spaniards are much closer in terms of culture and ancestry to the other non-Latin Europeans, but still as I have said, in my opinion that would be too broad, so again, Latin Americans and Latin Europeans would be for me the best option. After the Europeans I agree that Morroccans/Maghrebis and Middle Eastern would come next, but following that, as I said, we could end up making a very long list that is not reasonable. In fact we could argue that Europeans as Christians, Jews and Muslims also belong to a large group that have a common cultural origin, especially through the influence of religion, which has shaped their lives and cultures decisevely, but all that would probably belong in another article. Veritas et Severitas 14:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point we have to discuss is about agreeing on the definition. In other words, the scope. As i said above, the intro as it is, suggests including everybody related to natives of Spain regardless of their cultural or ethnical background.

Now, even w/ your defintion, which gives credit to cultural background, it is still innacurate to come to conclusions as you did. You forget that parts of the Spaniards are ethnically influeced by Berbers and Arabs. There were inter-marriages between these two groups. You forget or ignore the fact that 8 centuries of cohabitation is something very important, culturally and ethnically. Let me explain to you something very relevant. Myself, i am a Moroccan, officially of Arab background, look too Spaniard (depending on how do Spaniards look like) similar if not much Spaniard than many Spanish people. I do speak Spanish fluently as all my friends and family do. Culturally speaking, I've been brought into a mix of Arabic/Andalusian/Moroccan/Spanish/Berber environment as do my family and friends. In fact, i am a Morisco (maybe i am coming from a mixed ancestry). Now, you call Almodovar, Aznar a Spaniard (their names and physical aspects are too Arabic than mine!) and then you come up w/ original thought and analysis! If you are not sure about that than please have a look at the large list about Arabic influence on the Spanish language and Moriscos#Moriscos and Spanish citizenship. Visit Andalusia and then visit northern Morocco and some other few cities and you'd agree that culture is the common ground. This would clarify why i was amazed by the fact you included Sephardis and excluded others. This would help us settle matters. Again, Moroccans have to be excluded of course because Moroccans is not composed of a single group of people. But from where Almodovar and al. came from? Obviously, they came from a mixed background, at least culturally if we are not sure about the ethnical parts. Cheers -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As said, in spite of mutual relationships both groups are clearly distinct. Somebody could try and introduce Swedes or Germanic peoples because Visigoths were a Germanic people and are supposed to have come from Sweden and have played a major role in the idea of the Spanish state, still I would say that introducing Swedes would be stretching it too much. The same goes for Morocco. Morrocans as an ethnic group belong in a differnet Maghrebi, then Arab group. Anyone with a basic knowledge of anthropological concepts will tell you that. Related groups to Spaniards can only be truly justified as belonging to the Romance-Latin/Christian world. Spain has seen many influences during its history, but the Roman one was by far the most important one and the one that has defined Spaniards as an Ethnic group, providing them with their language, religion, culture, laws etc. That is the group that defines Spaniards as an ethnic group, the rest is drifting arbitrarily in one direction or another. Morocco and Spain are two sharply different countries. When you cross the Gibraltar strait you will see one of the the sharpest differences between two countries that you can see anywhere in the world, from all points of view. Veritas et Severitas 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't discussed the core of the subject Veritas and we haven't yet defined the scope. Once the scope is defined, we can then discuss who would be included or excluded. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have seen people introduce Maltese. I think it is justified. See from the Malta page:

Languages and religion

The national language of Malta is Maltese. The Maltese alphabet is based on the Latin alphabet, but uses the diacritically altered letters ż, also found in Polish, as well as the letters ċ, ġ and ħ, which are unique to Maltese. The official languages are English and Maltese. Italian and French are also widely spoken and taught in secondary schools, though the latter less so.

Roman Catholicism is the religion of approximately 98% of the population (CIA World Factbook, 2006). See Roman Catholicism in Malta.

In spite of a very rich history of different peoples, still the Maltese speak a Romance language, are mostly Roman Catholics and can be said to be a Mediterranean European country (in fact they are part of the European Union). What is the opinion on this subject here? Veritas et Severitas 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Veritas, the Maltese do not speak a Romance language. They speak a dialect of Tunisian Arabic with Romance influence known as "Maltese". Angolans and the Irish are also Roman Catholic but they are not related to the Spaniards. One could say that Malta is the only Arabic country in the EU (never tell a Maltese that).:-)--Burgas00 19:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how exactly are the Maltese an "Arabic country"? The Spanish were conquered by the Arabs for 800 years, whereas the Maltese were conquered for only 200, so how exactly are we Arabs and not Latins? Oh right...the dreaded language! Everything about our culture, apart from the language (which is still very heavily romanticized), is Latin. Marcus1234 18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to admit that I thought that Maltese was a Romance language, based on Italian and that Maltese culture was mainly of Latin origins. But I really do not know much about Maltese. It is interesting to know that it is a dialect of Tunisian Arabic. It seems that it is an interesting case. Veritas et Severitas 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language

It seems a very interesting a and special case. Veritas et Severitas 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Malta is a small place. I hope its unique language will be preserved... It has always been menaced by Italian and English.

When you cross the Gibraltar strait you will see one of the the sharpest differences between two countries that you can see anywhere in the world, from all points of view.

I dont know how many times you have taken the ferry from Algeciras to Tanger, Veritas. I have taken it on many occasions and I can tell you the similarities between the two(in every sense) by far outweigh the differences. --Burgas00 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Burgass, I am sorry but I have to say it. I think that we probably agree on many points but, in my opinion, you have an extremist point of view in relation to this article. As I had to say it more than once, you were behind a genetic version that devoted 3-4 to the Moroccan influence. You have been insisting on that all the time. Now you insist on adding Moroccans as a related ethnic group. Morocco is a beautiful place, I love it and I love Moroccan people. But Spain is a very different place, a very different culture and a different people, it is just like that. Extreme point of view pushing has its limitations.

I have deleted Moroccan again. I am not going to erase Sefardi Jews or Maltese. Shephardi Jews continue to exist, identify with Spain and call themselves Spanish Jews. The Spanish Goverment has recognized this fact and now they have the right to claim Spanish citizenship. They are a reasonable addition. Whoever is adding Maltese should say why he thinks this group should be included. Some people have mentioned here Morisco. If Moriscos continued to exist as an ethnic group, identified with Spain and called themselves Spanish Muslims, I think that they would be a reasonable addition too, but Moriscos do not exist anymore as an ethnic group. In fact I would support the inclusion of Morisco if people can prove here that they continue to exist as an ethnic group.

So I hope that people here are more serious. Of course Spaniards are not some kind of freaks who have been isolated as a people, but to try to include every single group because of past relationships is crazy. The Spanish relationships with the world can branch out in such a way that we could include half of the world and if we take into account the recent findings in population genetics, probably little short of the entire world, due to both pre-historic and historic events, direct and indirect events, etc. So, let us be just a bit rigorous.Veritas et Severitas 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas I insist on nothing at all. I was just surprised by your statement. Forget it, I see this is a touchy issue for you...;-)--Burgas00 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree on deleting Moroccan as related ethnic group. That reference is clearly out of place here. Of course Spaniards had historical relationships with lots of neighbour countries and nations in the world, but here we are discussing a completely different issue. We're talking about ethnology, we're talking about related ethnic groups, and even if a Moroccan ethnic group exists, which is extremely dubious, it's obviously an unrelated group in terms of ethnology and ethnicity. Anyway that's just my 2 cents on the matter... I don't think that issue should cause more POV pushing on the article --User:Ravenloft 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed by the fact that you keep talking about Moroccans. Everybody agrees that Moroccans are to be excluded from the article as discussed above. The problem is that you avoid analyzing and verifying historical facts. Let be more clearer on this issue.

Do you think that after 8 centuries the Arabs and Berbers left no ethnical trace in the Iberian peninsula Spain? It is like if you tell me that the Turks left no single trace in Syria, Egypt and Algeria! Granada at the times of the Moors was the biggest city in Europe in terms of population, so where did those people go? We know that at the reconquista times, Muslim and Jews spaniards left the country mainly to North Africa but what about the huge bulk of the rest who was converted?! Think about Spaniards who are still carrying Arabic surnames! Southern Spain if not other parts as well, is somehow similar to Sicily where Arabs and Berbers left a big ethnic impact that nobody can argue against. You are talking about cultural differences and traditions. Of course there are plenty and you know that that is due to the influence of religion and beliefs and not to any other thing.

Another point. Have you had a look at Moriscos#Moriscos and Spanish citizenship and all the news related to the issue lately? -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Moroccans just 'cause that's the precise discussion here: Moroccans being a related ethnic group or not. And since even you agree that reference should be excluded from this article, there's no more discussion on this subject then. Period.

I did not discuss the history of Al-Andalus, nor the massive hunting and expulsion of Muslims and Jews during the Reconquista, nor the Moriscos and neither the cultural influence of Arabs and Berbers in the southern territories of the Iberian peninsula. In fact, if a Moriscos ethnic group would still exist, I'd probably consider including them. Unluckily it does not exist anymore. --User:Ravenloft 17:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here we are reaching the core of this discussion. Certainly, Moriscos as an ethnic group don't exist but Arabs and Berbers do still exist. Veritas is arguing that Sephardi Jews are to be included while ignoring Arabs and Berbers! He even suggested Maltese indeed; which was odd! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess superficially one can say that Spaniards are not related at all to North Africans since Spain is a Latin country and the basis of its identity is Roman Catholicism, whereas North Africa is essentially Arabic-speaking and Muslim. Furthermore, a large part of Spanish culture is based on the rejection of its Islamic past, see the different fiestas and the obsessive consumption and near-veneration of pork.:-) It could even be argued that the Andalusian extravagant and in-your-face way of celebrating the holy week or the Rocío developed as a way of reaffirming its christian identity. Nevertheless, when one visits southern Spain, the ethnic and cultural links with the Maghreb are so evident in every aspect that there is a case to say the people should be classed as "related". One definitely feels closer to the towns in the Rif than to Bilbao or Toulouse. But this is only my opinion and I do not want to further aggravate Veritas.

I suggested Moroccans generally (including jews) because I felt that Spaniards, or at least southern spaniards, are not particularly related to any one of Morocco's ethnic groups but are related due to the general cultural fusion and movement of people which occured over the past 1200 years across the straights of Gibraltar. Ethnicity, in that part of the world has historically been diffuse and transferable. Fayssal, who I think is Moroccan, for example, cannot rule out, in my opinion, that he may have had relatively recent Arab, berber, jewish or christian ancestors, some of which may have come from Spain. In different moments of history, Spanish has been the lingua franca of all religious communities of what is now northern morocco and arabic has been the language of all communities of what is now southern spain. Cutting clear ethnic boundaries to explain cultural links based on religion or present-day language would be, in a way, artificial and arbitrary.

Anyways I realise Im alone in my opinion that Arabs, berbers and jews should be excluded and that Moroccans (or Maghrebis generally) should be included. I wont argue any further this point.

I would also like to point out to Fayssal that an Arabic surname for a Spaniard does not imply Arabic ancestry. Names like Almunia etc... which are Arabic are normally taken from place names rather than from lineage. Those Spaniards which were of Muslim origin (in the south, a majority) would have changed their names immediately to christian ones, even taking up noble names to hide their origins. Even Mohammed Ibn Ummaya (Aben Humeya), had a Christian name: Fernando de Cordoba y Valor. Jewish converts, as in other parts of Europe, generally changed their surnames to names of things (Pino etc...) It is funny to note that many moroccan jewish immigrants to Israel, nowadays, do the opposite. They abandon their moroccan surnames for more Hebrew sounding ones. The same goes for Ashekanzi jews: Shimon Peres' real surname is actually the Polish name Perske. Similarly Ehud Barak's original surname was Brog. All this to make my point that ethnicity is not static but constantly evolving. --Burgas00 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, when one visits southern Spain, the ethnic and cultural links with the Maghreb are so evident in every aspect that there is a case to say the people should be classed as "related". One definitely feels closer to the towns in the Rif than to Bilbao or Toulouse. But this is only my opinion and I do not want to further aggravate Veritas.

It is already clear that you have a very personal and extremist perception of things. The last thing that I had to hear is that people from Andalusia are closer to Morrocans than to people in Bilbao or other parts of Spain. The places that most ressemble the Maghreb in Europe are not even in Spain. Just visit Marseille and other places in France. Probably you want to go there too and say that the French and the Moroccans are a related ethnic group. I have had enough of this type of reasoning.Veritas et Severitas 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what is so extremist about that phrase. The people of Girona in certain ways are closer to the people of Perpignan than to the people of Badajoz. The people of Bilbao are in many ways closer to the people of Biarritz than to the people of Huelva. The people of A Coruna have strong ties with the people of Porto which neither share with Murcians. Canarians are related to Cubans and other Carribean Americans in ways that other Spaniards are not. Nation states are imagined communities and cultural bonds are created through history and politics. Spain is a cohesive nation state bound by a strong common identity. Nevertheless this identity does not erase transnational cultural links. Veritas, I dont think Im endangering Spain's Constitution with my comments. In any case I have no intention of editing this article so please lets stay cordial.

--Burgas00 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spain is a European Mediterranean country and in that respect very similar in traditional villages, especially in the South,to Italy or Greece. As to the the actual ancestry of Spaniards and Southern Spaniards there is no significant difference as has been shown in genetic studies. In fact the latest results in population genetics link the Spanish a lot to Atlantic Europe:

Here you have some up-dated information:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/10/10/ecbrits10.xml

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

Some people may object: That is just newspaper articles! OK, then read the real books: Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes (In the US will be for sale in December as Saxons, Vikings and Celts) and Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer, also a very recent edition.

Here you have some more basic information about genetic anthropology or population genetics, for those who may come across it for the first time:

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass4.asp

Here you have some other links:

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:wS6DZf6b-RUJ:www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm+r1b+europe+map&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG6

Or this one:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

See the legend: CEE = Central Europe East. CEW = Central Europe West. EE = Eastern Europe. IberiaS = Spain. IberiaP = Portugal. ItalyN = North of Italy. ItalyS = South of Italy.See also this legend: Molecular (first row) = Different molecular DNA loci and frequency (second row) = Haplogroups. Av. = Average.

This study is from 2004 and has used up to 8 different genetic loci.

Of special interest are the similarities between the British Isles and Spain (IberiaS) and Portugal (IberiaP). Thousands of samples were taken from all over Spain and the British Isles, and also from the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, especially the areas in Anatolia (Turkey) and Irak.

It is also very interesting to see the origins of the populations in Europe.

And no one here says now that Britons and Spaniards are a related ethnic group, because they are not. Ethnicity is a complex whole of things that excludes both Britons and Moroccans. And no one is saying here that Spaniards are not Mediterranean, because they are. And no one is saying here that there has been no North African influence in Spain, because there has been. And no one is saying here that at the end of the day, we are not all related, because we are all indeed related. But let us just stop and drift arbitrarily in this issue about a concept like ethnicity. Veritas et Severitas 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I interject. Burgas, Svest, you've got a point about the cultural influence of north Africa, particularly in southern Spain - but this article is about all of Spain - including Basques, Catalans, Castilians, etc. The narrower scope is called for or we're going to have to include half the world Provocateur 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to World Fact Book, it states that the Spanish are a composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types. This definition in itself is very tacky in itself, as Mediterranean is a very complex name it encompasses many definitions. However, it seems that the agenda of this discussion for SOME is to link Spaniards with Arabs. We definitely cannot rule out that 750 years of Arab posession would not have left an imprint. It is true that while many Arabs were expelled, many did convert to Christianity, thus allowing them to stay, but remember too, that the earlier Celtic element, and well as the Gothic (Visigoths, Vandals etc.) were also quite numerous and also extended their rule in North Africa as well. Therefore to try to prove a Spaniards similarity with an Arab is as ridiculous as trying to prove that Spain are closely related to Germans, as both were important, but not enough to relate the modern Spaniard. However, the bulk of the Spanish population is largely of Roman elements as they were most numerous, and more influencing than abnyone else. Just because Spaniards average a complexion slightly darker than a central/northern European, we cant lump them into the same group as Morrocans.

And we can consider Sicily as well. Sicily had 200 years of Arab rule until 1100 AD, in which the Normans came and ousted them out if they did not convert. Like Spain, many left, some converted. The Normans were descendants of the Vikings who ruled Sicily and Southern Italy for 300 years, in which French, Angevin, Catalans, and Bourbons all had a piece of Sicily until the late 1800's. The Arabic element in Sicily is vastly overplayed, just because Sicilians may have darker complexions than mainland Italians, central and northern Europeans. But read how pigmentation of one's skin has no determining in one's race. Only ignorant people talk of skin tone: (http://backintyme.com/essay021215.htm).

Hopefully this argument regarding the relativeness of the Spanish people can stop. The article itself has cited sources from scientists stating that the Spaniards are closely related to the Portuguese, French, and Italians; not Moroccans, not Tunisians, not Algerians. It does not mean that some of their imprints dont exist in Spain, but it is not nearly enough for Spain and North Africa to be related. So lets leave this to the scientists rather than our opinions or stereotypes. - Galati

I agree w/ most of what you've just synthetized Galati. A very good comment. HOwever, there's only one thing that is important. You talk about scientific studies and i strongly recommend that such articles SHOULD rely on them because they don't need literature. So, i just must remind ourselves that studies sourced in the article such as this one clearly state this:

The results shown by the Central Iberian Peninsula seem to lend support to a model of settlement population stocks which came from the region of Castilla-Leon after the Islam invasions, whereas in the South-East populations the genetic record of Middle Eastern populations is still present, a consequence of the expansion of Islam in Southern Europe in the Middle Ages. -- Szvest

^{Wiki me up ®} 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Mediterranean' population - Criteria establishment

The Historical Background pharagraph starts with the following (surprisingly innacurate) sentence: "Spaniards are a Southern European Mediterranean population." I think we've got to define some kind of criteria here. On the one hand, the assertion is innacurate because of its obvious inexactitude in terms of cultural and historical background (the name of the section): one just have to take a rough look to the history (both cultural and ethnical) of the different areas of spain to comprenhend there exist several and important non-Mediterranean ethnological roots that have to be pointed out. From the first indo-european migrations and genetical influx, to the seed of the nowaday's Kingdom of Spain itself (it was born in an environment unrelated to the Mediterranean sea: Kingdom of Asturias), to today's folklore and languages of the North Atlantic Spain, etcetera... The previous is just 'cause I'm assuming the sentence I point out as innacurate refers to a cultural influence. And I assume it is that way 'cause the fact is the word mediterranean links to the Mediterranean Sea article, and not to any ethnic group article. And that's just because there's no Mediterranean-ethnic-group article in Wikipedia, and that's just because that ethnic group simply does not exist or it refers to a gargantuan spectrum of ethnic groups. So as I said, since it can't be referring to a genetical or ethnical influence, that assertion must be referring to the obvious and huge cultural influence coming from the Mediterranean Sea... 'cause it couldn't refer to climate or geography even when the word "mediterranean" links to a geographical not-ethnical article, could it? There are obvious differences in terms of natural environment: there is an Mediterranean and Continental Spain and there is an North Atlantic temperate Spain [10]. In the northern stripe of the country the climate is completely Atlantic, the weather is completely Atlantic and the species are completely different to the characteristcal Mediterranean flora and fauna. So, if that sentence refers to a cultural, ethnological, geographical, environmental or climatic characteristic of the whole spaniard population (as it affirms)... Then it's simply inexact, simplistic and incomplete, and it must be completed. It could completed with other references using the same "cultural influence coming from the sea" criteria that it seems to use right now, or it could just stay as: "Spaniards are a Southern European population." --Ravenloft 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the ancestry of most Spaniards, it seems that it has little to do with historic people's (primarily), so the argument of these of those is pretty futile. Just look at the genetic section.

Most Spaniards seem to come from the prehistoric peoples living in the Iberian Peninsula, and according to recent theories, they may have been there for about 35.000 years. During the Neolithic, another wave of agriculturalists came. In historic times, many other peoples came: Celts, Romans, Visigoths, Arabs, etc. Still, even putting all these people's together, the prehistoric component of the Spanish population is clearly the majority component. So, the individual contribution of each of the historic peoples, including Romans, seem to have been very limited.
Still, I think that Mediterranean is a very good definition to define the Spanish:
1. It is obviously in the Mediterranean.
2. Their culture derives mainly from Rome, which is a Mediterranean civilization.
3. Has had many other influences from other Mediterranean civilizations.

Therefore, I would describe Spain primarily as a Mediterranean country. Portugal is on the Atlantic coast and can also be considered a Mediterranean country. Still, I understand the position of people who come from Atlantic Spain. Also, genetic evidence point to a strong connection between the Iberian Peninsula and Atlantic Europe, as a result of long prehistoric connections, rather than historic ones. Still, as said, it should be noted that it is this prehistoric component that defines the Spanish population and is the majority genetic population group in Spain. In conclusion, I agree with the definition of Mediterranean, but maybe it could include a reference to the Atlantic that is also reasonable: It could be something like this: Spaniards are a South-Western Mediterranean and Atlantic people. Maybe this could be a good solution. Veritas et Severitas 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for "predominantly Mediterranean". If the Basques, the Asturians and Galicians feel they are something else (celtic or whatever) so be it. They account for a minority of Spaniards.--Burgas00 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should respect all people. As I said, the term South Atlantic makes sense too, of course always along Mediterranean. Veritas et Severitas 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but South Atlantic doesnt really mean anything. It is not a common use word and is meaningless to most people.--Burgas00 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is becoming increasingly popular as an anthropological term to refer to people too. See: Atlantic Europe. Veritas et Severitas 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the solutions that are being proposed ("Spaniards are a South-Western Mediterranean and Atlantic people.", "predominantly Mediterranean" and the most accurate references to the Atlantic Europe) are ok to me. I agree with you, they do give a wider definition and make that sentence much better. That's my point, in fact. I do not state that assertion we're discussing is wrong, 'cause it's not wrong, but I discuss it because in its section context it results simplistic, incomplete and inexact. Or misplaced and poorly expressed in the Wikipedia standards:

1. It can't be referring to genetical influences or to an ethnical group because:

It links to a geographical article.
There's no Mediterranean-ethnic-group
The statement seems to contradict the section and the article in which it is. In the same section we find a very good long and exhaustive study of a wide spectrum of non-mediterranean genetical and cultural influences in the Spanish people that are more than worth mentioning. So, the sentence is contradictory because it's not completely true or because of its reductionism.

2. It can't be referring to a geographical-environmental influence:

It would be not true. Spain is not Mediterranean in its entirety, climate-wise.
An important part of Spaniards live in regions geographically unrelated to the Mediterranean Sea. And Galicians, Asturians, Cantabrians and Basques are an very important part of what we call Spanish People, from a lot of points of views.

3. If it's referring to a historical and cultural characteristic that affects the whole Spaniard populaton, then it's inexact because:

There have been other important cultural influences resultuing in a Spain that is nowadays clearly Atlantic in its culture (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country, ...), and other, the most part, that is clearly Mediterranean.
Again, the sentence would seem to contradict its own article (which extensively explores those other cultural influences) and others from the History of Spain series because of its reductionism and inexactitude.

By the way, the term Atlantic is used in Northern Spain as widely as the term Mediterranean is used in the rest of the country. There are countless organizations in those areas that use that Atlantic term as a definition for their area of influence, and some of them even include some areas from Portugal. In other European countries with similar circumstances like France they have no problem in locating a Arc-Atlantique France (as they say) and a Mediterranean France. In conclusion, I agree with the definition of Mediterranean, I think it's a good definition, but I agree too with completing it. Though I think "predominantly Mediterranean" is near to ok, an Atlantic reference would be maybe the most accurate choice. Maybe something like: "Spaniards are a Southern European Mediterranean and Atlantic European population.". "Atlantic European" makes sense referring Spaniards in terms of demographics (see Atlantic Europe and Europe) and cultural influences just like "Mediterranean" does. There could be other possibilities like: "Spaniards are a South-western European population, predominantely Mediterranean and Atlantic European". We just have to find what's the best option. --Ravenloft 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to fall into the trap of Spanish nationalist politics with a 30s-style racial undertone if this discussion continues. We all agree that Spaniards are predominantly Mediterranean ethnically, culturally and historically. What is the meaning of Mediterranean? Are, say, Berbers Mediterranean or African? Or Turks are they Mediterranean or Asian? Or Croatians Mediterranean or Central European? The definition of Mediterranean is to be found in itself: It is any people who lives in the Mediterranean and has mixed profusely with other people from that vast area. It is the case of Spaniards who have mixed since prehistory, even if the "Mediterraneanness" of A Coruña or Bilbao is evidently weaker than that of Cadiz, Valencia, Madrid or Almería.--Burgas00 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People! When you say Mediterranean in this type of articles you are really saying Mediterranean race! Should we continue to use an archaic antro-biological terminology many claim to be tainted with nordicist views...? I think not. The Ogre 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we're talking about the Mediterranean word being in that sentence as a cultural reference and not as race or genetical reference. That was the criteria establishment. Don't worry about it Ogre, it's already established. I think nobody here will fall now in the trap of talking of Mediterranean race, and if so that Mediterranean word should be just deleted off the sentence.

But anyway, even when referring to a cultural influence, I've stated the problems and incoherence or inexactitude of the assertion in the article from a lots of points of views, and I think that problem is pretty obvious right now.

To start the consesus: Do we all agree on referencing Spaniards as a Mediterranean population? I do. Do we all agree that there are some other important cultural non-mediterranean influences in an important part of the Spaniard population (Galicians, Asturians, Basques...), which had also an importan ethnical impact in other non-Iberian spanish populations? I do. And the contents of the Historical Background section too. So, if this issue is now as obvious as it seems, we just must find a way of expressing that idea more accurately.

There have been some good ideas over here. I'm now thinking in solutions like: "Spaniards are a South-western European population, predominantely Mediterranean and Atlantic European" or "Spaniards are a South-western European population, predominantely Mediterranean with Atlantic European influences" or something similar... I feel the correct way of building that concept is somewhere over here, and the word "predominant" could be a good nexus for consensus. --Ravenloft 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that people here know enough to know that concepts like Mediterranean Race and others are absolutely obsolete and no one takes them seriously anymore, so I think that that is not a problem.

What if we keep it simple:

1. Right now we have: Spaniards are a Southern European Mediterranean population.

2. Let us just add: and Atlantic.

3. We have just with a small change: Spaniards are a Southern European Mediterranean and Atlantic population.

Veritas et Severitas 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go for Raven's: Spaniards are a South-western European population, predominantely Mediterranean with Atlantic European influences"--Burgas00 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Atlantic European influences? I think it is already clear that all recent theories about the links in Atlantic Europe point to an influence coming from Iberia to Europe, not from Europe to Iberia. Spaniards, along with the Portuguese, apart from being a Mediterranean people, because of the reasons that I have expressed, can also be considered an Atlantic people per se, not because of influences coming from abroad. Veritas et Severitas 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Raven said: Spaniards are a South-Western European population, predominantly Mediterranean and Atlantic European. I think that option is also good. Why? Because culturally they are predominantly Mediterranean while genetically they are predominantly Atlantic European. Veritas et Severitas 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I really dont know about these theories of prehistoric population movements which you present. In any case I seriously dont want to go into them again. Anyone who has been to Madrid and then to Britanny, to the UK or to Dublin knows that Spaniards are clearly not "Atlantic European" physically or culturally. In any case, if large swathes of northern Spain spoke Gaelic or shared clear ethno-cultural traits which differentiated them from the rest of the country I would tend to agree with you on the "equal" importance of the so-called "Atlantic ethnicity". Nevertheless, I just cannot see any argument in favour of this apart from things like shared haplogroups... And this type of argument reminds me alot of Arzallus.--Burgas00 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to the matter, we were reaching to the core. I think all the reasonings that you both are offering here are strong. It seems that we have three candidates right now. All three options are ok for me, and I'd go for any of them. Anyway it is true that "influences" is not the best term that could be used. Maybe a good way of having all of the options included is that last version that Veritas emphasizes. Conceptually and wikipedia-wise, it is an smart solution at so many levels. Additionally I think it is one of the best candidates to consensus here since it includes softly both the "predominantly Mediterranean" and "Atlantic" concepts.--Ravenloft 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes although... the phrase reads "predominantly Med and Atlantic" together, opposing them to some other minor influence.--Burgas00 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of perception, although I think you still have a point. But I really can't find a way of sepparating them without making the phrase sound "clumsy" or simply worse than how it would be right now. The comma doesn't work and other options would imply some longer considerations that we better avoid for a single introductory phrase. As I said, it is a very good option and it is smart (that's the word) at many levels, think about it Burgas00...

I'd really go for it. Anyway, let's try to find a way to avoid that "reading together" effect that you detect. I don't know right now how it could be, and I'd go for the phrase as it is now, but I'll think about it for a while.--Ravenloft 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment on Burgass. In fact if things do not suit him, he always plays the racist card. The fact that Iberians are predominantly an Atlantic population that originated in Iberia itself is not questioned right now by any major population geneticist in the world. It can be seen in any Hapmap that you want:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

and in many other genetic studies. But Burgass will always come up with the same simplistic and infantile responses. The fact that most of Spain was Celtic or Pre-Celtic when the Romans came to Spain, he seems to ignore too. See the Celtic part in the article or this map: [11]. Or the fact that the best known Celtic or Pre-Celtic languages are Celtiberian and the Lusitanian language, spoken in the center of Spain and in central Portugal and the area of Extremadura in Spain respectively. The most famous Celtic hero tha opposed the Roamns is Viriathus, celebrated by both Spaniards and Portuguese, a Lusitan Celt. Or most importantly, the fact that these links that we are talking about are actually pre-Celtic and took place much before the Celts arrived.

But going back to the main issue. It seems that we all agree or the majority of us agree on the one that I said. OK then, edit it Rave. You have my support. Veritas et Severitas 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so it seems we all agree at a high percentage with that particular one, and that one also seems to be the better constructed we could find until now, so then I edit it: "Spaniards are a South-Western European population, predominantely Mediterranean and Atlantic European" for now. I do it because it really seems to find a good consensus between our different points of view while staying accurate in many ways. Anyway I'd be open to any suggestion from Burgas00 that could find a solution for the perceptive "reading together" problem he detects, while it still keeps the same coherence and consensus. --Ravenloft 21:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok Raven, looks good to me.--Burgas00 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. --Ravenloft 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks god you have reached and agreement and me as atlanto-spaniard can feel identified with the definition. You do not know how weird sounds to me to be labelled as mediterranian when I do not share with that sea more than any person living in the french atlantic fachade. The underlying intention of making all spaniards under one patron and disregarding any deviation from the mediterranean Spain as racist ("Arzalluist") makes me wonder if independentist won´t be right.

People deleting information

Here we have some users deleting verifiable information. I have made verifiable and updated contributions and some people delete it. Veritas et Severitas 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ths is unacceptable! The Ogre 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope that people do not continue erasing the references of the most updated information now in the article: The references to three leading population geneticists and genetic anthropologists, like Stephen Oppenheimer, Bryan Sykes and Spencer Wells, all of them pointing to a strong genetic connection between Iberia and Atlantic Europe, especially the British Isles, in very recently published books. I fact I think that such relevant information would even deserve more elaboration, because of the relevance of the findings involved and because it is extremely updated information. Anyway, I will not change the contribution yet. If people think that it should be more elaborated we could elaborate on it more. Veritas et Severitas 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person in question is again Burgass. I leave it here for some time for other users to judge this user's constant behaviour in this article. Veritas et Severitas 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the information that I am adding is the following:

More recent studies actually point to a strong genetic link between Iberia and Atlantic Europe, especially the British Isles, as has been stated in recent books by leading population geneticists and population anthropologists such as Bryan Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer and Spencer Wells.

The books are in fact: Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes, Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer and Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells.

Those books have all been recently published in 2006 and are of course in line with all major genetic research that is being done in this area. They are much more important in scope than the previous, older articles in the genetic section that deal with the issue in one single line. Yet, user Burgass deletes the information constantly, using diverse arguments. He does not even say: Let us elaborate on that and footnote the sources, etc. No, he just deletes the information. Veritas et Severitas 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Ogre, it is unacceptable. A pattern of obsessive refusal of that particular information can be clearly noticed in the behavior of this user, whoever he is, since he doesn't seem to be confident enough about his disagreement in that matter to start a discussion on it. The information you're adding is apparently unharmful and results as reputed as any other similar reference in the article.

Additionally it seems appropriate to include in the article some information about that increasing trend between geneticists and anthropologists (a tendency born and leaded by the studies of the more than reputed University of Oxford), who are finding links between Iberian inhabitants and British Isles inhabitants. It's a fact that in the UK's genetic and anthropological community those studies are literally being paradigm-shifting, and scholars from all the world know the good reputation of Oppenheimer as an eminence in DNA anthropological research. I don't see anything harmful or inappropiate on it, nor nothing to start a revert war, and if there is something that I'm missing, I'd be interested in hearing why it must be deleted.

Regardless of that,I think the particular reference Veritas is proposing results a little bit vague and unelaborate, I would ask for a little bit more elaboration on the matter so it can make it into the article. I'm not asking for its own section-article, not an unnecessary long and technical exposition and demonstration, but just for some changes that could make it feel a little bit more scholar than a short reference to some unnamed studies. As an unrelated personal comment: incidentally, though I'm not an expert on the matter, I've been reading some scholar material on the matter lately and I think it would be even an interesting addition to the article as a whole, and even to other articles. I'm sure other wikipedians are working on it somewhere else, I'm looking forward to their contributions. --Ravenloft 21:31 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I have kept it to a minimum has been Burgass, who has always been denying and deleting information related to this issue, which is a major issue and among the most important discoveries in genetic anthropology in Europe recently. When I have time I will provide more information on the subject and see if we can elaborate more something that deserves much more elaboration, because according to these geneticists, it defines most Iberians and most Britons, not just a minority. Veritas et Severitas 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Issue

I will start with some quotations from Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles (In the US for sale from December under Saxons, Vikings and Celts):

The maps and the data in the Scotland paper that you can see in the discussions above have been taken from pages 290 and 292 in the book.

The book is full of interesting stuff and anyone interested should read it. Anyway, just some interesting quotations:

Page 280.

...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

Pages 281-82.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.

Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and Euroepean Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.

Page 283.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

From Origins of Britons, by Oppenheimer you have the following sample.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language....Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

Similar conclusions in Deep ancestry, by Spencer Wells.

Note that the Neolithic influence is now thought to have come also from Iberia by these authors.

The difference is the following:

1. Both Sykes and Oppenheimer see different migrations coming from Iberia, but Sykes thinks that the bulk of the population came to the British Isles in the Neolithic while Oppenheimer thinks that alhough there was a significant one during the Neolithic, most people descend from earlier immigration from Iberia during the Mesolithic.

2. Spencer Wells and the National Geographic Genographic project come to the same conclusions, and they seem to be closer to Sykes' theory.

3. Another difference is that while Oppenheimer has used data from previous genetic studies, Sykes has used those but also his own, more than 10.000 samples taken from all over the British Isles along with his team over a period of 10 years.

For anyone interested they should read the books. They can also type in Google: Atlantic Modal Haplotype. They can find lots of information there too.

Archaeology:

Archaeology is overlapping with these genetic findings too. Just see Atlantic Europe where you can find examples like theEuropean Megalithic Culture and the Atlantic Bronze Age. This issue is also covered in an recent book: Facing the Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples, 8000 BC to AD 1500, Barry Cunliffe, OUP 2001.

In short, the only archaeological or historic and genetic findings that are overlapping clearly in relation to a genetic population group that is dominant both in the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles, are those related to Atlantic Europe.

By the way, this genetic population group is the largest one both in Portugal and Spain, where it averages 60+-70+% depending on the sources, peaking in the Basque country, with about 90-95% depending again on the sources. In the British Isles the average is about the same, with Ireland showing the highest percentage, about 90% (in some places in the west close to 100%). In England it is about 64%-70% depending again on the sources. All this information is equally valid for both the Spanish and the Portuguese articles. Veritas et Severitas 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a break veritas. Your edits are borderline obsessive. And all this because it bothers you that in the US people ask you whether Spaniards are white? :-)--Burgas00 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Well, here we have again Burgass' response to the Atlantic issue. Shall we just keep our mouths shut about this issue?. I do not know what to make of it. Again I let readers here judge for themselves.

By the way, some users are vandalizing the page again: making changes without discussion. I know it must be a coincidence. Veritas et Severitas 19:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence or not, it's a worrying matter and it's becoming a bad habit in this article. It would be great if some admin could have an eye on it.

By the way, those are very interesting quotations, Veritas. Last year I've been assisting some minor thesis on Neolithic and Megalithic research for the Archaeological Museum of Asturias, and it's really amazing how they find so many similarities and patterns in all the Atlantic Arc pre-Bronze Age cultures.

Anyway, I think an exhaustive analysis of that matter would be an appropriate addition for an hypothetical genetic-archaeological anthropology section on the Atlantic Europe article, but it could stay in this article just as an elaborated and well sourced reference. Overflooding too much the Ancestry section with that information is not necessary in this particular article. I think those concepts have enough weight to make it into the article on their own rights, but we should keep its length proportion on a rational level: as a well elaborated and well referenced comment. To link to other more exhaustive articles, which could get more profoundly into the matter, would serve as a good consensus tool. Additionally, I think the users which seem to have an special skepticism about having too much of this information in this article would be more comfortable that way. --Ravenloft 21:58 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think the length of my contribution is OK. Maybe you want to change it a little bit here or there, no problem on my part. Expanding the article about Atlantic Europe is a good idea. There is more than enough information to expand it. If you want to start expanding it let me know, I would try and help.

On the other hand, elaborating this issue more in this article could also be interesting. Anyway I do not want to do it on my own. I have had enough with Burgass' harrassment. Veritas et Severitas 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry for harrassing you.In case u suspect me, its not me who is reverting your edits on the ancestry section. Although I agree that particular studies should not be mentioned.--Burgas00 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimous user deleting verifiable information again and the same information.

Again some anonimous user deletes verifiable information. I think I know who is hiding behind that mask. In any case there it is. Veritas et Severitas 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truly sad behaviour. Some admin should take care of it. --Ravenloft 10:47 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who??? not me,I assure you !!!!--Burgas00 15:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the user is and whatever his motivations are, he is acting against the 3RR and for sure he is earning merits to be included as a member of the Wikipedia's Lamest editors Olympus. It'd be sad to have this article protected just because such a lame behaviour. Let's hope things go back to normal, it'd be great if he could consider using this Talk Page instead of trying to own the article. --Ravenloft 16:25 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have introduced again the information deleted by some anon user. This information has been discussed and more importantly it is verifiable and updated information, complying with all the basic rules of Wikipedia for editing. So, if such conduct continues I will request for an investigation. Veritas et Severitas 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is verifiable and updated (as are all the other sources) however I partially agree with the anonymous editor in the sense that i dont understand why it is that these studies must be the only ones quoted in the section. The consensus was that no studies would be cited. And indeed none were until u included all this Peter Sykes stuff. Is this not giving undue weight by means of style?--Burgas00 16:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can wait for other comments and if other users agree we can try alternative statements. Anyway, I do not see anything wrong in mentioning the leading authors who are behind the statements to support the statements themselves. I do not think that just stating these facts that are very new and unknown by most people, without any clear reference, is advisable. I even think that due to the relative new nature of these studies the books themselves should be mentioned or footnoted. Yes, I think footnoting can be a solution. Well, as said, let us wait for comments. By the way, if one of these days I am not responding it is because I will be soon out for some days. It does not mean that I have lost interest in the article. Veritas et Severitas 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something else. I have been having quite a fight with some people in the white people's article for some time. In my opinion some of them are of an ideology that apparently I cannot express because it is considered offensive and then they block you. Still I think it is a pity that these people take over that article. They often want to limit the concept to Europeans as if Europeans were a race apart etc. I have had to make some concessions and often I have just given up, but as said, it pisses me off to leave the article alone at the hand of those extreme positions. Just in case some people here want to drop by sometimes and have a say over there. Veritas et Severitas 17:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article include pictures of famous spaniards

Yes. I think so. Better than paintings of 16th century monarchs!--Burgas00 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree. I think paintings of 16th century monarchs should stay, as they are important in terms of cultural ethnology, but the particular people on the pictures could be renewed and some more wellknown famous spaniards could be added. --Ravenloft 21:58 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No bad idea. The only caveat that I see is that it was tried before and at the end people did not agree with the people chosen and at the end it was all deleted. This is not new stuff in the article. Veritas et Severitas 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about doing some kind of previous draft of people who could be on it? We could have in mind that some similar articles (see Irish people) have 10 people on the main picture. I personally nominate the following:

Historical figures:

Carlos V
Hernán Cortés

Painters:

Velázquez
Picasso

Writers/Poets:

Miguel de Cervantes
Bécquer

Philosophers:

Unamuno
Jovellanos

Musicians:

Tomás Luis de Victoria
Isaac Albéniz
I don't have any candidate between contemporary spaniards though I think they should be worldwide known because of their merits. --Ravenloft 11:21 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the most famous contemporary Spaniards are Raul and Antonio Banderas, I guess:-) Women should be included too so as not to be accused of sexism. La Pasionaria? Penelope Cruz? Not the vice president please!!!xD --Burgas00 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... I hope nobody nominates De La Vega, please. You're right, women should be included... historically maybe some important queen like Isabella of Castile or Isabella II, as for contemporary women I think Penelope Cruz or Tamara Rojo would be ok.--Ravenloft 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totaly disagree! There is already an article called List of Spaniards. We should not duplicate information. The Ogre 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing a list of famous spaniards... we are talking about updating the existing pictures including some more famous spaniards --Ravenloft 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two famous Spaniards are two current world champions: Pau Gasol and Fernando Alonso. Still I agree with the Ogger. I think the pictures now are fine and follow the same principles established in the other people's articles. Veritas et Severitas 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok in the Irish people page there are 10 figures. If we choose sports figures we are going to have to choose between the 4 most famous: Alonso, Nadal, Raul and maybe Pau Gasol... Actors it is clear who the most famous are: Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz. Political figures: The two last presidents and perhaps Francisco Franco. Historical figures, I would include la Pasionaria so as to have a woman and to politically counterbalance the presence of Franco. I guess Dali and Picasso should also be there. I think it can be pretty easy to make a shortlist of 10 or perhaps 12 figures. --Burgas00 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then Im cool with her being in the list as well. I personally prefer pictures of contemporary Spaniards to paintings of monarchs.... what do u guys think?--Burgas00 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways we can divide the people who can go in the picture into the following:

Sports figures

Raul
Alonso
Nadal

Artists

Picasso
Dalí
Lorca

Political or historical figures

Franco
La Pasionaria

Actors

Antonio Banderas
Penelope Cruz

Any suggestions for each category?--Burgas00 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that categorization. I think we should the mantain the de facto Wikipedia standard for ethnic group articles. Take a look:

Albanians
Armenians
Austrian people
Basque people
Belarussians
Bulgarians
Catalan people
Czechs
Danish people
Dutch people
English people
Finnish people
French people
German people
Greek people
Hungarian people]]
Irish people
Italian people
Lithuanians
Maltese people
Norwegian people
Polish people
Portuguese people
Romanians
Russians
Scottish people
Serbs
Slovaks
Swedish people
Turkish people
Ukrainians
Welsh people

As you see, the pictures in all the ethnic group related articles show people really significant to the history of the country. The vast majority of them are historical figures, writers, philosophers and composers. There's still a space left for a contemporary outstanding figure or a worldwide celebrity coming from the contemporary movies, sports or arts.

And I agree with having one or two of those contemporary figures in the picture (Gasol, Alonso, Cruz, Banderas, Plácido Domingo, Tamara Rojo, etc...), but the majority of the people pictured should stay in the Wikipedia standard. I can't agree with a categorization that reserves 3/4 for contemporary celebrities and only 1/4 for historical figures. --Ravenloft 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and I agree. However, I feel that a majority of the people must be figures known world wide. I have added a few of these above.--Burgas00 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we still could follow your idea of doing a 'name pool'. But we better don't use that previous categorization . By the way, you must have in mind that nominating contemporary people may be problematic in terms of image copyrights... See the Image copyright policy.

Anyway, I'm adding my suggestions to yours and then everybody can add their own. (For future voters: please, add your candidates to the list or type an asterisc near the name if you want to add a vote to a previously nominated candidate): --Ravenloft 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry i cant figure out this way of voting. Could we start again using some other method? Signing or adding our user names?Or maybe simply adding an X.--Burgas00 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, signing could be a good idea. A candidate name would count as a vote for itself, and signing near a name would count as a vote for that candidate. --Ravenloft 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Burgas00... you can't vote twice for the same guy... A candidate-name proposal counts as a vote for itself, that means: when you propose a candidate you're already voting once for him. You only can add your vote by signing near other users' candidates.--Ravenloft 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.But I cant even remember who you added and who I added. Ok if you remember just erase my votes on the corresponding person. Sorry about that.:-)--Burgas00 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem --Ravenloft 11:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

Raúl
Fernando Alonso (--Ravenloft)
Rafael Nadal
Picasso (--Ravenloft)
Dalí
Lorca (--Kali06)
Francisco Franco
La Pasionaria
Antonio Banderas
Penelope Cruz
Isabella of Castile
Carlos V
Hernán Cortés
Velázquez
Miguel de Cervantes (--Burgas00)
Bécquer
Unamuno
Jovellanos
Tomás Luis de Victoria
Isaac Albéniz
Tamara Rojo--Burgas00
Plácido Domingo

anonimous user edits.

An anonimous user continues erasing information and making changes without discussion. Watch out for him. Veritas et Severitas 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid its the same user who has been making edits without discussion (removing info) on the scottish peoples page. His agenda is obviously to destroy the genetics linking people of northern iberia and british celtic regions.--Globe01 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. There are a lot of people with weird agendas on this and other issues. And an agenda is to constantly downplay or even delete verifiable information by reputed scholars just because we do not like it, it does not fit our fixed agenda or our preconceived view of reality. Veritas et Severitas 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my goal is to make a neutral POV present in these articles, which involves removing the biased edits made by you two users. You have both consistently made very controversial and unfounded edits in this and similar articles based on your own agenda, yet you accuse others of doin the same without acknowledging your own ridiculous POV edits. I am not denying the link between Iberia and the British Isles but it is the same link shared across western and atlantic Europe and there is no special relationship with regards to those two respective regions. The relationship is only based on the Y-chromosome and Mtdna inheritance shared with all Western European regions. It needs to be reminded that there are subgroups to the r1b Y-chromosome marker and the regions have differential values in both y-chromosomes and mtdna. There is very little to no evidence of autosomal and x-chromosome analysis, and when viewing the y-chrom./mtdna percentages in these populations you need to look at them as a whole. R1b is found across western Europe in high frequencies, but it does not mean the populations are necessarily very related to each other. There is no genetic evidence yet of a Neolithic link between the British Isles and Iberia since R1b traces back to a Paleolithic Iberian refuge. The Neolithic and following periods were quite different between the Iberian and the British Isles and the Neolithic Y/chrom. and Mtdna percentage is much larger in Iberia than in Britain or Ireland. You also must not rely so significantly on references by Sykes or Oppenheimer since they have not brought any new genetic evidence to the subject and only cite studies in their books that have already been out for quite some time and are already found cited in these articles. I've read through both books and they really do make hasty, unfounded and biased conclusions that do not necessarily coincide with the results of the studies they refer so much to. There are also books already out, and also some to be released in the following months, which contradict and refute many of the "findings" or "conclusions" of Oppenheimer and Sykes. Their views are also a minority among population geneticists and anthropologists because the majority acknoledge that many more studies on all sections of DNA need to be carried out to fully understand the origins of various peoples, let alone declaring any solid conclusions or findings. I do agree that I should discuss my edits when I make them and I will endeavour to do so from now on so it is easier to compromise on the fidings in this article. 69.157.107.88 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my goal is to make a neutral POV present in these articles.

I've seen your edits, you are certainly not neutral. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have both consistently made very controversial and unfounded edits in this and similar articles based on your own agenda,

Untrue, these editors have sourced their claims to published reiable sources. The criteria for inclusion in ikipedia is Verifiability not truth. This seems to me that it is you who are making the unfounded edits. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little to no evidence of autosomal and x-chromosome analysis,

These markers do not form lineages due to recombination, so they cannot be used to trace founding events, nor be used to trace origins. This is basic genetics. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no genetic evidence yet of a Neolithic link between the British Isles and Iberia since R1b traces back to a Paleolithic Iberian refuge.

Read Oppenheimer, he says there is evidence of such a link, particularly the E3b and J lineages, which entered the British Isles from Iberia. This is a reliable source, please provide another one that refutes this if you want to include this in the article. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through both books and they really do make hasty, unfounded and biased conclusions that do not necessarily coincide with the results of the studies they refer so much to.

Both works are original pieces of research, they do not rely on other published papers for their conclusions, if you had really read the books then you would know this already. Whether their conclusions are biased is a matter of your opinion, this is irrelevant in Wikipedia, if you are Epf, then I have told you before ad infinitum, your opinion is irrelevant. Provide reliable sources, you do not have the authority to decide that certain sources are biased and so should not represent reliable sources just because they do not fit your very specific fantasy of how the world should be'. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also books already out, and also some to be released in the following months, which contradict and refute many of the "findings" or "conclusions" of Oppenheimer and Sykes.

But you don't appear to be able to name the books. Please name them, and please cite them here if you use them in the article. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their views are also a minority among population geneticists and anthropologists because the majority acknoledge that many more studies on all sections of DNA need to be carried out to fully understand the origins of various peoples, let alone declaring any solid conclusions or findings.

How do you know their views are in the minority of population geneticists? This is not my understanding at all. These results have been replicated several times, and are supported by other Irish and British populatio genetic work,The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe and also by archaeological work. Oppenheimer uses linguistic, historical and archaeological evidence to support his claims. You have again made a bald statement that as far as I can see is what you want to be true, that somehow these people are "maverick" scientists that are not in the mainstream. Well as far as I can see they are exactly in the mainstream. mainstream genetics and mainstream archaeology both point to these same conclusions. Do you actually know anything about the scientific process? Scientists develope theories and hypotheses all the time, and are always working with limited data. Do anthropologists decide not to identify a piece of skull bone because "we don't have a full skull, so we'll wait untill we find one". Do physisists say "we won't make a model about the origins of the universe, because we don't know all of the details of qualtum mechanics"? No they don't, scientists build models based on the evidence available to them at any given time. Then scientists try to disprove their model. No scientists expects their first model to be absolutely correct, but it may be quite close. There are certainly some things we can say with confidence. So to claim that their model is "wrong" is irrelevant, their models fit the observed data very well, maybe new data will emerge that will mean that the model needs to be modified, or changed completelly. It doesn't matter. As for other parts of the genome, well recombination means that autosomal DNA can only tell us so much, it cannot be used to infer lineages. A person't mtDNA is directly transmitted from a specific maternal ancestor in a linear manner intact, as the NRY is directly transmitted patrilinearly. We can say with confidence where these lineages derive from. We cannot do this with autosomal DNA, it is mixed up and we can never say where any given stretch it comes from. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Epf, we are not interested in your point of view here. Those facts are published by authorities in the field. That is it. If you have other new books contradicting them, cite them, I am looking forward to reading them. Veritas et Severitas 03:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional commment I would like to remember why we found consensus in the introductory sentence: it refers to cultural and ethnological influences, and not to genetical influences (read "Criteria Establishment" in the talk page).

As for the genetic controversy, I think it would be a good thing to find also a consensus for the genetic references you're discussing in the rest of the article. The correct way of doing it is here and not by doing reverts. So, please, discuss it. --Ravenloft 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background section

Burgass has now supported one version with some comments in the historic section. I am not going to make any changes myself. Still I would like to say something for consideration:

1. Now the theory that Iberians came from outside of Spain is not main theory. They are believed mainly (not exclusively of course) an aboriginal population influenced by Phoenician and Greek culture.

2. The genetic evidence points mainly in this direction.

2.a. Let us take the following example:

The genetic markers known as R1b are usually linked to Celts. But that is obviously wrong. It comes from a much older population.

1. Basques have nothing to do with Celts and we all know that they have the highest or among the highest proportion of R1b.

2. Catalans have nothing to do with Celtic culture either. In fact they were part of the so-called Iberian culture. See here:

http://arkeotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

As people can see Catalonia was an area occupied by different tribes like the Lacetanos, Indiketas, etc that are considered Iberians, not Celts.

Well, Catalans have also one of the highest proportions of R1b in Europe, even higher than that among Scots. According to this source exactly 79,2%. See:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/TBL1

So, genetic evidence points clearly that the bulk of the population in both Iberian and not Iberian areas of the Iberian Peninsula is mainly aboriginal.

As to the genetic section, I am not going to make changes personally either. Still, said population geneticists speak clearly of this influence in relation to Iberia and the British Isles. Oppenheimer is even able to date different migrations from Iberia into the British Isles, both in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, and taking into account R1b subgroups, Mitocondrial DNA and even I haplogroup subgroups that occur mainly in Iberia. But anyway, I see that some people here and in other places (interestingly the same people) seem to have some kind of problem with what those population geneticists state in their books. Veritas et Severitas 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user conduct

Watch out for him. I have already reported this user here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#anon_user_conduct

Veritas et Severitas 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon (aka epf)

epf, many anthropoligists have linked the people of wales, cornwall and even people living in parts of scotland and ireland to the people of iberia (usually the basques).

The roman general tacitus linked the Silures, a tribe of south wales to the people of iberia for their dark complexions and curly dark hair, this is even in oppenheimers new book. Many victorian and past aswell as modern anthropoligists have linked the peoples of certain regions where r1b is high (though not all such as central ireland) to the peoples of iberia often without the knowledge of a genetic link (in the case of victorian and other times).

I'm not saying all the high r1b percentages found in the british isles correlates with a more iberian look (eg the people of central ireland are 90% r1b yet almost entirely have black hair blue eyes and very pale skin and occasionally red hair).

I'm sure the paleolithic and pre younger dryas migrants from spain may have somehow adapted to the harsh conditions of the british isles and lack of sunlight wheras the mesolithic and later migrants were probably less likely too.) there are some mutations on r1b that are exclusive to the british isles and there are some mutations on r1b the both the british isles and spain share. Oppenheimer shows the data for this. It would be interresting to asses anthropological appearance to r1b mutations.

Anyway back to the point, you claim the data is not new, INCORRECT, Brian Sykes uses his own Data never before published or used (he collects 10,000 dna samples from across the british isles) so you are wrong about your earlier statement.

Finally, most of the migration from iberia to spain oppenheimer claims happened in the paleolithic while sykes claims it happened mainly in the neolithic. --Globe01 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizos are NOT Spaniards!

Who but some ignoramuses could confuse the two? Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz are Spaniards, not like any Mexican. So please, be correct in your political correctness. Thank you. Les Invisibles 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I only stress this because the population table is absolutely wrong. Ah, why even try? It's just Wikipedia! So nevermind, don't bother! Who cares anyways? Les Invisibles 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mestizos are people who are part Spanish and part Indian. So, this is like saying "Mulattos are not Negroes". or for that matter "Mulattos are not Caucasians". Gringo300 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm understanding...where does it say in the article that they are 'the same'? The pop. table has people of Spanish ancestry...hence RELATED PEOPLES...if someone outside of Wikipedia should happen to say such a thing, why would it matter here? Please keep personal opinions/thoughts to yourself. Thank You. --C.Kent87 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizos are indeed related people because they have Spanish ancestry, same language, religion etc.. The fact that they may also have Amerindian ancestries is irrelevant. It just makes them handsomer than Spaniards, that is all. Veritas et Severitas 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizos are related to Spaniards, because Spaniards are a type of mestizo. Unlike white people and other racially pure stocks, Spaniards have not disfavored racial admixture. Spaniards are a sort of mestizo themselves with Arabic racial elements taking predominance over Mediterranean elements. For the Spaniard more mixed blood doesn't matter when you're already a miscegenated people. This is all explained here white people--^DarkTea 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mestizos are not "related to Spaniards, because Spaniards are a type of Mestizo"..it'd be the other way around. Spaniards, and especially those who went to the New World were very European. People in every 'group' have different elements within them...other European peoples may have not been mixed 'as much', but that doesn't make them less White. Even Queen Elizabeth II has non-white ancestry...and she is the very picture of "Europeaness". The 'Arabic' blood may be in many regions gene pools, but not all. Many Spaniards are Whiter than other 'White' people...bottom line is everyone is mixed...humans have beem mixing and mingling blood for thousands of years, and before that we all came from the same place. We can read other sources to figure this out. Thank You. --C.Kent87 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for this Dark T. He is well known in the white people article for his obsession with Jews, Arabs, Gypsies, Hispanics, Spaniards and Mediterraneans. Quite a funny guy who poses as Japanese and who insists on introducing Neo-Nazi websites and positions in the white people article.Veritas et Severitas 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spanish ethnicity - Languages of Spain

In the section Languages of the ethnicity box, the link Spanish languages and dialects should direct to Languages of Spain and not to Names given to the Spanish language. I tried to change the template, but couldn't (is it protected?). Can someone do it? Thanks! The Ogre 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ravenloft 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide source for this

I find this interesting in the ancestry section: "as well as the relatively high frequency of Subsaharan Mtdna haplogroup L". Can said author provide a source for this. He may be right but the only study that I think I have read spoke of it present in Southern Portugal, not in Spain. Veritas et Severitas 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have found it myself. I think it is the Pereira study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16201138&dopt=Abstract. I will introduce the link myself. Veritas et Severitas 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will also introduce the British Isles in the beginning of the ancestry section. According to all these recent publications Britons are genetically closer to Iberians than the French, although they also are. Just to support the assertion, here you have from Origins of the British, by Stephen Oppenheimer:

In page 366 you can find the Pan-European genetic distance map by Rosser, obviously concerning modern Europeans. You can see very well where the Spanish and the British cluster (incredibly close). It is a shame that I cannot show it here, but here you have what it written at the bottom: Figure 11.4a... Locations in the British Isles, including England, group near the Iberian pole, along with France and Belgium.(Two dimensional genetic distance map generated using the First and Second Principal Components in genetic analysis).

Oppenheimer then writes about it in page 367:

"In Rosser's work , the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, East Anglia and then northern France"

In pages 375 and 378 you can also find:

By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia, ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory... ...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples...

I have also introduced a small comment about Neolithic Iberians in the British Isles. Since people here I think are already familiar with the books mentioned, they will know that they all speak about Paleolithic and Neolithic migrations. In fact Sykes believes that most of the people in those Islands come from Neolithic migrations from Iberia, although there were also Paleolithic migrations from the same source. Oppenheimer also sees those migrations, but he thinks that the majority come from the Paleolithic. Veritas et Severitas 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also made an addition about the increasing immigrant ancestry of Spaniards. They already make up an important percentage of the population and have the highest birth rates in the country. Each child born to an immigrant becomes a Spaniard and they are becoming more and more numerous. I think it is not justified in any way to leave this important fact out. Veritas et Severitas 11:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should avoid confusion on one particular point. There are Neolithic peoples who came originally from the East and which have neolithic genetic markers and "neolithic" in the sense of migrations which may have occurred during this period but which are independent of Neolithic colonisation of Europe from Anatolia. An important question which we have not discussed is the origin of the Iberians as a tribe. (I included a section saying that they were of neolithic (i.e. Eastern) origin, but then erased it when I made some research on the matter. It seems that no one seems to know clearly who the Iberians were or where they came from. --Burgas00 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what happens is that a lot of theories are now being questioned, as a result of the latest findings of genetic anthropology. The majority genetic markers of Iberians do not match those theories. As to the British question, that you take on again in your comments in the article history, it is not secondary and you seem to react a lot to it. Well it happens to be a major issue right now in genetic anthropology and all major books published right now take on the issue, I do not understand why we should avoid the main currents in this field right now. What happens is that some people still find it hard to believe. In fact, Britons and Iberians are not distantly related in genetic terms, as you have again introduced, but very closely. This is without any doubt one of the most controversial results of all those books and findings, not because there is not enough evidence for it, but because it is so different from preconceived ideas (see again my comments about Rosser Pan-European genetic distance map)and it is controversial among common people, not among professionals. I urge you to provide a single professional and published opinion that goes against those theories. Again, to say in the article history section that those relationships are from 45000 years ago is pure ignorance. You have not even read the latest books and continue to make arbitrary claims. All those books speak about contacts over a span of 15.000 to 6000 years and even less. 45000 years is the time when this population is supposed to have arrived in Spain, not in Britain. Then, that those links come from many thousands of years ago is one thing, but that the present populations are genetically very close is a fact, according to these scientists. Most of the serious population genetic studies right now are being carried out in Britain and they deal a lot with populations in Spain. In fact they take populations in Spain as a major reference. As to the Villena study, it is quite outdated and he has lost favor in his theories. In fact I assure you that you will not find any recent publications by this author anymore. Just try. Right now no one has doubts about the major genetic links of most Iberians and they point in a very different direction, which is not in contradiction with diverse other genetic connections that I am sure also took place. So to imply that now in 2007, Iberians (and by Iberians the majority of people in Spain)originated in North Africa, like your contribution suggests is far from the main stream in genetic anthropology. In fact, to think that pre-Neolithic Iberians may come from the same people as the Egyptians may even sound flattering to many Spaniards, but it is not serious in the light of today's knowledge. Still if you want to leave it, no problem with me, but I think that you seem to oppose a lot the current mainstream theories in genetic anthropology. I do not blame you, you use theories that have been postulated for hundreds of years, but if you are really interested you should read said books well. They are the latest and constitute mainstream thinking right now. Another point, to state that the French are closely related to the Spanish, genetically speaking, but not the Britons (you have erased Britons again) is against all the citations that I have provided above again and mainstream thinking now. According to said authors, who happen to be the main authorities in the field that we are discussing, they are among the most closely related populations in Europe, genetically speaking, whether we like it or not, and that is not in contradiction with the fact that hey are also closely related to other peoples. And if this news is not an important finding I do not know what kind of news is important in population genetics. Anyway, even though I think you are going against basic Wiki rules like erasing cited and verifiable information and introducing arbitrary comments, for now I am going to leave other users to decide if your comments are more accurate or mine. I will not make changes again myself, so that more people participate. I do not want this to be just a dialog between the two of us. Cheers. Veritas et Severitas 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points and there are a few mistakes in my edits which are the result of sloppiness more than anything. Ill try and correct them. As for the Britons, I do have some reservations about this, although we should perhaps discuss it on our talk pages at some point in the future. --Burgas00 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your reservations about the Britons, many population geneticist have linked people of certain regions of the british isles to specifically the Basqes of northern Spain and even anthroploigists have too see this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg

Including R1a and I1a haplogroups.

Haplogroup R1b and its impact and frequency is inluded in this article, R1a and I1a should also be included and discussed.

Manic Hispanic 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Especially Haplogroup I is interesting because it shows important percentages. According to this recent article:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf

We have the following values if I did not make any mistakes:

Haplogroup I:

Southern Spain:

Seville: 12.3% Huelva:9.2% Cadiz: 14.7% Valencia: 12.9%

Central Spain:

Castille: 33.3%

Northern Spain:

Leon: 3.4% Cantabria:5.7% Basques: 8.8% Catalans: 6.2%

This Haplogroup is thought to be of prehistoric origins and some of it may have come to Spain with the Visigoths, because it shows the highest frequencies in Scandinavia, where the Visigoths are tought to come from. It also shows very high frequencies in the Balkans, where this Haplogroup is thought to have originated, to spread North later into Scandinavia. This Prehistoric population may also have come into Spain.

We have therefore some interesting situations here:

1. Interestingly it shows higher frequencies in the South of Spain than in the North.

2. The frequency in Castille is much higher than in other areas, with an incredible 33.3 %. Since Visigoths established themselves in Castille, being their capital Toledo. May this much higher frequency in Castille be related to the Visigoths? Or for some reason Prehistoric Iberians of this lineage survived better in Castille?.

I think it poses interesting questions.

The values for R1a are much smaller:

Seville: 0.6% Malaga: 7,7% Valencia: 3.2% Cantabria:4.3%

Veritas et Severitas 16:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that sounds about right. I believe I1a deserves mention for its high frequences in and around castille. The small amount of R1a could be a stamp of the small settlement or iranic alans. As R1b R1a and I1a are the main three haplogroups in europe all three should be included. I know alot of spaniards get touchy about this, but statistics on the frequency of the berber/moor stamp Haplogroup E3b percentages and concentration should also be included. Manic Hispanic 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most Spaniards are proud of their Berber and Arab heritage, at least those who know history well (Muslim Spain reached levels of civilization and progress way above Visigothic Spain. Muslim Spain introduced in Europe advanced medicine, algebra, reintroduced Greek philosophy and a long etc. Without Muslim Spain the European Renaissance I doubt would have ever existed, etc: Just some clarification for ignoramuses).

Something else is that some people want to magnify that for whatever reason, then I guess some other people get pissed off, because there is an agenda. For example: Most experts agree that the Berber-Arab contribution is about 5-10 per cent in the Spanish genetic pool. Well, if you know the history of this article, the North African part sometimes occupied 3/4 of the article. All influences should be covered proportionately. When this does not happen, it is because we often have people with clear agendas in these articles.

But going back to the main issue: Maybe we could start proposing a page for the population genetics of Spain, and leave a link to it in the body of this article. This has already been proposed in other people's articles and this way the genetic part could go into much more detail. Otherwise it would be too long here. We can wait and see what other users thinkVeritas et Severitas 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of creating that specific population genetics article. -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because no other article exists for "genetic make ups" of any other population. Too much emphasis is being laid on this issue and it is all becoming quite embarassing. I agree with the reasoning behing the proposal: we dont want the ancestry section any bigger than it is already.--Burgas00 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Burgas00, take a look at the Ancestry sections of the Irish people, English people or Scottish people articles and you'll see you're wrong. Such articles do exist and they're part of an increasing trend in Wikipedia. Even more, I think it could be a good idea to do a Population Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula article, where the genetics and ancestry secions of Spanish people, Portuguese people, Basque people, Catalan people and other related articles could be compiled and go much more deeper than in the generic population ones. -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by now two people agree and one disagrees. We can wait and see if more people want to vote on this. Manic Hispanic, who has opened this debate, I guess will also vote. As said, the article would look better without so much technical information about genetics, and a link to a genetic article would be more convenient, in my opinion. Right now we should not add more information in the section as it is. It is already too long. But on the other hand there is obviously genetic information missing.

In fact, Haplogroup I is the second largest, after the ubiquitous R1b: See our famous Macdonald Map:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

And then we have the relevant case of its high percentage in Castile, where as many as 1/3 of men seem to carry it, and no information is provided about it at all. Veritas et Severitas 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I vote for this info's inclusion. Mention of I1a deserves merit especially in regards too its high leval of incidence in Castille. Another article should be written with all this good information as well. Perhaps one or two sentences in this article about R1a and I1a would suffice. (Manic Hispanic 03:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, by now we have 3 people in favor and 1 against. Let us wait a little more to allow other people to participate. Veritas et Severitas 16:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree. I only disagreed if no such articles existed for other people articles, which seems not to be the case. In any case, I agree we should wait a bit see if anyone comes up with a less complicated idea.--Burgas00 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit below...--Burgas00 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Genetics of the World

perhaps we should create one giant artice with links to in depth genetic articles on all the worlds continents and within that all the worlds political boundaries.

i,e there is already population genetics of the british isles (with england, scotland wales and ireland included). There should also be population genetics of iberian peninsula (perhaps balkans, scandinavia, italy too or something alon gthose lines).

so population genetics of iberian peninsula would be part of the european section whihc would be part of the world section.

just an idea, discuss. --Globe01 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. It should indeed be of the Iberian peninsula (and balearics, Madeira, Azores and Canaries) rather than of Spain.--Burgas00 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population genetics of the world sounds like a great article. And as I said previously, to do an Population Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula article seems a great idea to me. -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it comes here: Well, I support, as said before, the creation of a genetics article, about Iberia or the world, and just leave a link in this article. It is true that some studies contradict others, therefore only those studies duplicated several times and in the mainstream should be chosen. Also, up-dated ones. Population genetics is moving fast and some studies carried out some years ago are now not considered very reliable. In my opinion only recent studies should be taken into account and as said, only if they coincide with others. Also pay attention that they are from Universities and accredited population geneticists. There is much speculation out there in many websites that are not reliable sources. Anyway, I will be absent for some time. I will leave this up to you. Cheers and good luck. Veritas et Severitas 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup I revisited

Another thing, you guys should read the wiki article on Haplogroup I. The small number of Visigoths who took over Spain have little to do with the presence of the I Haplogroup in the peninsula. The movement was South-North from the Iberian and Italic peninsulas rather than North-South and it occured during the Paleolithic. Similar to R1b.

Those Scandinavians who have I1a are originally from southern Europe.--Burgas00 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, what is really irritating about this whole issue is that genetic studies regularly contradict each other.

Look at this map of the frequency of I1a!! http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1a_large_RG.jpg

Or look at this study on the diffusion of Haplogroup I: Compare the frequencies in Iberia to the rest of Europe. According to this study Iberia has the lowest frequencies in the entire continent!. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/DNA.RootsiHaplogroupISpread.pdf

--Burgas00 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is opposed to the inclusion of population genetics when discussing the makeup of the spanish people. Manic Hispanic 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I support, as said before, the creation of a genetics article, about Iberia or the world, and just leave a link in this article. It is true that some studies contradict others, therefore only those studies duplicated several times and in the mainstream should be chosen. Also, up-dated ones. Population genetics is moving fast and some studies carried out some years ago are now not considered very reliable. In my opinion only recent studies should be taken into account and as said, only if they coincide with others. Also pay attention that they are from Universities and accredited population geneticists. There is much speculation out there in many websites that are not reliable sources. Anyway, I will be absent for some time. I will leave this up to you. Cheers and good luck. Veritas et Severitas 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a small paragraph about R1a and I1a below where it talks about R1b: Haplogroup I1a and haplogroup R1a are found at low levals throughout the country, with the exception of Castille where I1a reaches levels of 33.3%. Haplogroup I1a and R1a are believed to have been introduced by the Germanic Visigoths and Vandals. Iranian Alans may have introduced haplogroup R1a.[21] [22] Manic Hispanic 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I do not believe it is possible that such a radical genetic difference exists between Castilians and not castilians. As you probably know, large swathes of Castile were depopulated during the middle ages and most of the descendants of modern castilians originate from other parts of the peninsula.

Secondly, this study contradicts another source which examines specifically the distribution of haplogroup I in Eurasia: http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/DNA.RootsiHaplogroupISpread.pdf from 2004 which actually shows slightly lower frequencies in central Spain than in the rest (particularly the coastal regions of the north. Furthermore frequencies of Haplogroup I are shown to be the lower than anywhere else in Europe. It is difficult to believe that the Visigothic conquest, carried out around 100,000 individuals could have influenced the genetic landscape of Castile to such an extent, while not influencing at all regions such as Cantabria and other areas which have historically formed part of the kingdom of Castile.

Finally, of the different subclades of Haplogroup I, I1b2, originating in Sardinia seems to have just as much prevalence if not more than I1a, as is the case for the entire western Mediterranean Arch.

As Veritas said: only those studies duplicated several times and in the mainstream should be chosen. A frequency of 33% of I1a in Castile as opposed to 3 to 4% everywhere else on the peninsula sounds to me like statistical error. --Burgas00 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about the 33% I1a frequency would certainly need more references to make it into the article -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basques related to Neanderthals?

Any one has any sources on this theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs)

Never heard of it. The whole issue of Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons is quite controversial, as the The Lapedo child affair shows. I blieve the mainstream theory is that there is no genetic contribution of Neanderthals to Modern human lineages. That type of speculation regarding Basques is probably best kept out of the articles. The Ogre 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I changed the map, (again, and for the last time) to the now upgraded Hispanophone legacy map, as I feel it is more appropriate for this article than the Sp Empire map. Cheers Provocateur 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is wrong

The Spanish people or Spaniards are the ethnic group or nation native to Spain.

False. Would an article on American people say "The American people or Americans are the ethnic group or nation native to the US"? No, because we know that US citizens belong to different ethnic groups. American, just like Spanish or Spaniard, is a term of citizenship. A Spaniard is a citizen of Spain: so a Basque sailor, a gypsy dancer and a goatherd from the Canary Islands, they may belong to different ethnic groups but the three are Spanish citizens. Even if all ethnic groups in Spain are able to speak Spanish and share some cultural traits, that's not a reason to make the label "Spanish people" equivalent to "Spanish ethnic group". There's very little difference between, for instance, an old Galician-speaking woman living in the south of Galicia (NW Spain) and an old woman living in the north of Portugal, apart from the fact that the first one is a Spanish citizen and the latter a Portuguese one. The Spanish are not a homogenous group as, say, the Icelandic. So if this article is mainly intended to define the predominant group in Spain, Atlanto-Mediterranian white and with Spanish as 1st language, it should be clearly specified, since the terms "Spanish people" and "Spaniards" cover all other ethnic groups and citizens from the kingdom. --Purplefire 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with you. The problem is that we could apply that fine-grained concept to virtually every nation of the world. Spaniards are a very old nation or people (for me, as an Iberist, along with the Portuguese). It is of course a diverse nation, like all European and world nations, but that is covered in other parts of the article, very clearly, and America is not a good simile. Veritas. 70.156.157.40 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that, at an ethnic level, there are two types of nations in Europe:

The Western ones, including Spain, France, Italy, the UK, Belgium etc.. which have a political basis and developed as large and powerful kingdoms with little regard to ethnicity, thus having the tendency to culturally homogenize their populations,
and the eastern ones: including those which appeared as a result of the collapse of the Ottoman and austriohungarian empires, where ethnicity is a much important basis for the construction of the state. Germany would be part of this group but so would Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania etc... Here ethnicity is mantained across boundaries, particularly because of the relative youth of the states and the frequent change of borders.

Thus an Albanian in Macedonian remains an Albanian and a Bosniak in Slovenia remains a bosniak. Nevertheless, a Portuguese in France will be French within one generation, as will an Irish in the UK etc...

The Western nature of Spain is even more extreme in the sense that ethnicity is completely inexistant within its boundaries except when backed by a political project. A Basque is Spanish unless he supports basque independence. Right wing basques tend to be even more Spanish, or pro-Spanish than anyone else. For a time in the middle ages catholicism was another factor which acted as an agglutinant of the nation. You were Spanish if you were Catholic. Now it is political persuasion which has taken the place of religion. In Catalonia, language choice and political-ethnicity seem to go hand in hand. Many descendants of Andalusian or Extremeñan immigrants, having chosen to speak Catalan and voting independentist parties such as ERC.

With regards to foreign immigrant communities, time will tell how the Spanish self-identity will develop; either to assimilate these communities or to exclude them.

This is simply my personal perspective of course.

--Burgas00 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on that. Veritas. 70.156.140.11 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with you. The problem is that we could apply that fine-grained concept to virtually every nation of the world.

That's why I think it should be more objective, as all of us probably have different opinions on what a nation is. Ambiguous as it is, a title like this ('Spanish people') should at least specify more clearly that it may be referred to Spaniards as citizens of Spain (objective) or Spaniards as an ethnic group (highly subjective and most likely associated to Castilians). As you said, almost every nation-state in the world is formed by more than one ethnic group. But people (specially in Europe) know somehow which is the main ethnic group or the 'core area' of the nation, usually because it is the language (or other ethnic factors) of that ethnic group that are predominant or official in the whole country. The German link in this article, for instance, leads us to an article on Castilians, clearly because we know that Spaniards as an ethnic group is mainly intended to talk about Castilians, for a variety of reasons, mainly historical, linguistical and cultural, just as an article about the Spanish language is intended to talk about the Castilian language (even if some would also call Spanish languages those other languages of Spain). So all this should be dealt much more carefully or objectively than it has, because someone who reads the article gets pretty much the impression of Spanish people being a homogeneous ethnic group. It is obviously more homogeneous than it was in the past, but Europe and the whole world are too. Then you find other incoherences as when it comes to talk about the language of the ethnic group and it suddenly begins talking about the "languages of Spain". What I mean is, the article would make sense if it was written to talk about Spanish citizenship or about Castilians, but as it is now it turns out to be an expansion of what could already be written in sections of the article about Spain. Purplefire 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a common mistake made by non-Spaniards. Castilians as such do not form the core of the Spanish state, although the kingdom of Castile (which included places like the Basque country and Galicia) was fundamental in the creation of such a state and its language became the national language when the Spanish state was created. However, Castilians as an ethnic group are neither politically nor demographically particularly important. They are not the "core of the nation". As I explained before, the core of the Spanish nation is the majority of Spaniards who feel Spanish, irrespective of their "ethnic origin" (Basque, Valencian, Andalusian etc...). It is a political identity, similar to the British identity. In that sense, we can say that Spanish ethnicity does not exist. It is, in any case, a difficult question. --Burgas00 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User XGustaX

User XGustaX is again attacking this article pushing his strange racial ideas and generally vandalising the article. He is not using his account. Could wikipedians please revert his edits? --Guzman ramirez 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Sorry for reverting before. But whats the big deal with how many Mexicans speak Spanish? As far as I know they all do... But is it relevant to this section of the article?--Burgas00 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only added it because the section is about the Spanish language (I acknowledge it's on the page of Spanish people)...and it speaks of populations who speak that language. Under it, it speaks of Spanish being transported to the Americas and what not...I think it's quite note worthy to add it in...It's only one sentence after all. (and not all Mexicans speak Spaniish, as the other user pointed out). C.Kent87 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it just seems out of place to me for some reason...--Burgas00 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be in the paragraph below. Btw I just checked up, only 3% of Mexicans don't speak Spanish and around 6% know an indigenous language, making Spanish the first language of 94% of Mexicans.--Burgas00 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have tied it in a little better...and I do see how it would fit further below, but up there it's speaking of the numbers involved with the language, it seems to go there as well. Thanks. C.Kent87 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Burgas00 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)== New article about genetics ==[reply]

I will add this new and recent article, from 2007:

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/journal/preprints/AJHG44466.preprint.pdf

In page 5 it states:

"The Spanish and Basque groups are the furthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestions the Iberian peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry".

The article comes to a conclusion that is already becoming mainstream thinking in population genetics (this was already known according to lineage related markers and now it is becoming also apparent with the usage of other genetic markers)and which is without any doubt one of the most important findings in relation to European populations and to the Spanish. It also points out how the Spanish in general and the Basques share the same basic origins.

So I will introduce virtually the exact quote and leave a link to the article.Veritas et Severitas 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I erased it. Can you put it back in?--Burgas00 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did it. Thanks for telling me. Veritas et Severitas 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas some vandal is deleting the statements about spaniards being genetically similar to welsh and irish (another common nordicist or something). Anyway genetic research has demonstrated this to be true and the statement needs to be re-added, ive already re added it a few times but cannae be bothered anymore so if you or anyone else could keep an eye that would be great. --Globe01 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Some people just seem to have a lot of problems with population genetics, erasing information that is already well known, but what can we do? This is Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does other continental groups mean other groups in Europe or other continents? I cant really figure it out from the source and it is not clear in the article.--Burgas00 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means from other non-Europeans (south Asia, central Asia and Africa). It is very clear and consistent with the conclusion (according to these people) that "the iberian Peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry" which means more characteristically European (Paleolithic) since other influences came mainly during the Neolithic to Europe. It does not mean that Spaniards a pure anything (people jump easily to conclusions). As the other parts of the article leave clear there have been many other influences. The interesting conclusion from this and other studies is that the genetic history of the rest of Europe is even more "mixed". Population genetics is bringing about so many interesting things!. I will introduce the clarification though. Veritas. 72.144.145.2 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I rearranged the whole section it was rambling, chaotic, repeating itself and not coherent. I moved your source further up and paraphrased abit since the quote by itself made no sense. I also rearranged the paleolithic stuff moving the R1b bit futher down as an example and I added mini headings for main issues. I think its better like this. No change made to info.--Burgas00 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your arrangement was good. Just adding some important information that is missing:

1. About the important claim made in the 2007 article that Spaniards are genetically the Europeans who are the furthest away from other continental groups (I do not know why you left it out).

2. The comment about Iberians (historical section) being similar or coming from Berbers holds no water anymore. The genetic evidence is very clear right now and is a lot of POV pushing. I am also erasing the comment about Basques to reduce all POV pushing although the genetic evidence is overwhelming in this respect.

3. Since naming specific European nations seems to be a conflict here, I am just leaving southern and western Europeans. Veritas et Severitas 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental groups means European groups. It's silly that you claim that by continental they mean Asians and Africans. First of all this is OR. Second of all, look at the graphs. And finally, have you heard of continental breakfast? Do you think they mean Asian and African breakfasts by that? LOL Lukas19 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your way to negate what is in black and white is incredible, No wonder people are tired of your sophistry. Veritas et Severitas 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and new sections

I guess the main question is whether Basques and Catalans (for example) are Spaniards. The answer to most is yes. However, many of these do not consider themselves to be Spanish and have an exclusive sense of their own ethnicity.--Burgas00 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section is needed either on identities or minorities in which we can also fit in the section on the gypsies which is kind of floating in the history section.--Burgas00 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is already in the section: Other related peoples. Veritas et Severitas 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didnt get me. Have a look at the history section. At the end of it there is a paragraph on the Gitanos which doesnt really seem to fit into that section. It talks more about ethnicity and identity of Roma in Spain. I think it would fit in much better in a new section related to identities in Spain, in which sub ethnicities and minorities such as basques, galicians, roma catalans valencians etc... could be discussed more fully in an appropriate way. I also think that the history section should be cut down and all ancestry related issues should be removed from it. Then something could be added at the end on the modern history of Spaniards (19th century, civil war dictatorship, transition etc... Of course very very brief since this info is looked at more fully in the article on Spain.--Burgas00 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I changed my mind on this. Its too much. History in my opinion should be untill the formation of the Spanish state and identity. Since that is what is relevant to the Spanish "people".--Burgas00 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you reverted but the whole article still needs to be restructured in my opinion. Catalans and Basques should not be in the same section as south americans and filipinos, for example.--Burgas00 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made new section. It will come up in the article. See if it is OK. Veritas et Severitas 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok slowly getting better.--Burgas00 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I think there is important information missing in relation to the lat article introduced. I will introduce this comment:

"A recent genetic piece of research from 2007, contrasting European populations and other populations from Asia and Africa, claims: "The Spanish and Basque groups are the furthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestions that the Iberian peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry".

It is almost a literal quote and anyone can check the article. Since it contemplates the overall genetic structure of the Spanish in context with other European and non-European populations, and so recent as 2007 this part must be expressed clearl and not underplayed.

I have introduced it. I will wait for comments though. Veritas et Severitas 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,420: / Line 1,420: @@
 ::Continental groups means European groups. It's silly that you claim that by continental they mean Asians and Africans. First of all this is OR. Second of all, look at the graphs. And finally, have you heard of [[Continental_breakfast#Europe|continental breakfast]]? Do you think they mean Asian and African breakfasts by that? LOL [[User:Lukas19|Lukas19]] 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
+Your way to negate what is in black and white is incredible, No wonder people are tired of your sophistry. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 ==Definition and new sections==