Talk:Spaniards/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Spaniards. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

By the way I have joined the edit war of attrition between Burgas and al andalus over whether we should consider "indoeuropeans" a related ethnic group. I aree with Burgas that it is (a bit) stupid. Hispanics, according to Al Andalus' version, are also considered non indo european for some reason I fail to comprehend... Please discuss: --Cassius80 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The link to the earlier Indo-Europeans is mainly linguistic, but some people insist on using it and others do not. The reality is that we really don't know to what extent people are related to some ancient Indo-European people and many researchers are increasingly supporting the idea of language replacement by various invaders. In this case, it would mean that Spanish and other Latin-based languages came due to the Roman Empire and supplanted earlier langauges, while people are largely the result of neolithic migrations that have been altered to some extent by various invaders. In the case of Hispanic, it's a geographic term the US census bureau made-up to include anyone from a Spanish-speaking country and is useless as an ethnic term since it's like saying Americans or Canadians are an ethnic group rather than a nationality. Even on our census forms it even clearly states that Hispanics can be of any race and yet our idiotic mass media now depict everyone from Latin America as one type of people in every way. Tombseye 18:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I share Cassius' opinion as he has already stated. Indoeuropean doesnt mean anything except a vast language group which encompasses the entire western hemisphere and much of the Eastern hemisphere (except the Pacific Rim, Africa and the Arab world). It also happens to exclude the basque country, which is in Spain. Latin Americans are those Americans which share Latin ethnicity (by culture, language and descent). This makes Latin Americans are Latin People. Even though many have Indian or African admixture this doesnt exclude them from the Latin ethnic group. That is why they call themselves Latinos. Alandalus is denying Latin ethnicity to people who consider themselves Latin. Btw, Tombseye yoy have not made your position clear. Do you think the reference to IndoEuropeans should stay or go? And do you think Latinamericans should be in the Latin peoples section or not? --Burgas00 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to argue over whether a spoken language signifies people are related to some ancient Indo-European people or is the result of language replacement of previously unrelated peoples. In human history, when languages were replaced it commonly meant absorbtion by the invaded of the invaders. Language was not the only thing being replace/absorbed, so was culture and genes. Thus, while the conquered indigenous Iberians (let's assume Spain was once populated solely by non-Indo-Europeans; the Basques or someone related people) may not have origanally been Indo-European, their modern descendants (the Spaniards) are, at least in part. This is how the modern Spanish people descend ftom a common Indo-European group who spoke the proto-Indo-European language while also being descendants of ancient Iberians.

If you are going to make the argument that Spaniards should not be placed as Indo-European and related to other Indo-Europeans, then neither should we put that Spaniards are Latin or that they are related to other "Latins". After all, was not language replacement (as you yourself have stated) responsible for Latin (Castilian, Catalan, Galician, etc.) being spoken in the Iberian Peninsula today. The whole reason behind putting Indo-European is indeed because Latin is already listed. "Latins" are not some monolithic grouping which is an independent ethnic tree with its own branches of peoples related only amongst themselves. Latin is itself a branch of the Indo-European tree. Yes, both terms are linguistic, but what I don't understand is how you can acknowledge the linguistic nature of both terms, but then insist on only granting the "Latin" branch merit of group representing some sort of genetic relationship, but not afford Indo-European the same thing, noting that without Indo-European, there would be no Latin.

As for the question on Hispanics. I think we must leave out any American (ie. USA) understanding of that term. The reality is that outside the United States only people that descend from Spaniards are considered Hispanic. It is only in the United States that it is commonplace to include people other than those descended from Spaniards (ie Spaniards, Latin American criollos, mestizos and mulattos). It is only in the US that you will find, for example, unmixed indigenous Guatemalans, Cuban Blacks, Sino-Peruvians or Italo-Uruguayans classified as Hispanic. Only in the US it is that you are Hispanic if you come from Spain, descend from the original Spanish and Mexican settlers of Southwestern United States or come from any Spanish-speaking country in Latin America (remember that there are non-Spanish speaking countries in Latin America, namely Brazil).

In regard to "Latin American", in this case Latin America is the name of the region. Anyone born in the region is "Latin American", whether they are Hispanic (criollos, mestizos, mulattos) or not. In this case, because Latin America indeed includes people that may be unmixed Amerindian, unmixed Black, or of direct Japanese or Italian descent who were born in the region, these are also Latin American but not related to Spaniards. And I don’t think I even have to explain that Spaniards who may have never even left Spain are not even remotely related to Latin America or Latin Americans. That they are related to Hispanics of Latin America does not make Spaniards related to Latin Americans themselves, because Latin America encompasses more than just Hispanics. Al-Andalus 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

Okay, my position is slightly in favor of removal of the term Indo-European here and I do believe that it's not really necessary here since the links to Spanish and other languages can explain that Spanish and other Latin languages are derived from said parent family known as Indo-European. It's a very artificial way of classifying people as Persians probably share more in common with Iraqis than they do with Spaniards for example. Some peoples articles are using it and some aren't. I personally don't think it's very useful other than confusing people into thinking, sometimes wrongly, that all the people who speak these languages are directly related when that's not necessarily the case. I also agree that Basques, in the context of this article are considered 'Spaniards' at any rate so the usage of INdo-Europeans becomes even more useless. Spaniards don't use the term Hispanic and it is, in my opinion, a useless term, even in the US (and outside it) as it has morphed into an ethnic/racial group that doesn't really exist. I say we get rid of that terminology. As for Latin Americans, I think we can include those who are creoles, that is people of Spanish ancestry and make clear that the Spaniards are related to some, perhaps even most, Latin Americans by blood (including those who are part Spanish such as many Mexicans, Puerto Ricans) etc., but not to all of them. Expressed in this manner I think we can make things clearer. Tombseye 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye, Indoeuropean doesnt mean anything at all and should me removed. As for Alandalus' statement: "I don’t think I even have to explain that Spaniards who may have never even left Spain are not even remotely related to Latin America or Latin Americans" My friend you have clearly a very limited knowledge of both Spain and of Latin America. I am Spanish from the Canaries, and I can assure you that an Argentinian, Mexican or Chilean could not tell me apart from a Venezuelan, or tell who was from where even after spending a day with us. The people of LatinAmerica (or Spanish America as is also said in Spanish) are intrically linked in every sense to the people of Spain. We share blood bonds but not only, our culture, music, religion,language and general way of being are similar and intrically linked. A recent example of this closeness: A couple of weeks ago, Rocio Durkal a famous Spanish singer who I barely knew died suddenly. It was covered in the Spanish news for a few days, but Mexico plunged into national mourning. Obviously this link is lesser with Indians in the mountains of Peru who speak Quechua or whatever. But these people are not so much Latin American but more American "a secas" or Amerindian. Being Latin American is defined by a relation with Spain (or Portugal), be it what it may. You cannot be Latin American without being Latin!!! Even if you are only Latin because of your language, as is the case for a minority (e.g. Argentinians of Polish origin). In my opinion, AlAndalus doesnt make sense, and lacks some knowlege of our cultures.--El chicharrero 18:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

El chicharrero, you're yet another person getting "Hispanic" and "Latin American" muddled. If you're going to quote me, quote both sentences so that the message is in context. I said that Spaniards who may have never even left Spain are not even remotely related to Latin America or Latin Americans collectivelly. Spaniards are, however, related to Hispanic Latin Americans, but not all Latin Americans are Hispanic, and by "not Hispanic" I don't mean the Brazilians (which are Latin Americans also). I'm refering to the non-Hispanic populations living within the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America (indigenous, blacks, immigrants). And by the way, let's not use the US definition of Hispanic. Al-Andalus 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My question for Al Andalus is Why are Latin-Americans not Indo European???? It is clear that they are Latin... So what is your point. I find your position completely irrational!! People who are not latinamerican living in latinamerican countries are not latinamerican. It is as easy as that. Its like saying there are no Irish Americans in the US because there are Cherokee Indians, Greek Americans and Blacks in the US!!! --Burgas00 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was unaware of this discussion. Indo-European is a linguistic group that encompasses meny etnicities and "races", if we may still use this term, from India to Western Europe. I think it makes no sense to try and use it as an Ethnic group. I have already made some comments about the term Indoeuropean in the section below. HCC.

I have a question for Al-Andalus. Where are you getting you're information? Are you a Spaniard? I was born in the Canary Islands, from Gran Canaria to be exact, and while I consider myself a "Canarión" first, I am as much as Spaniard as an Andalusian or Castilian. We Canarians share much in common with Latin Americans particularly those from the Caribbean region like Venezuela, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. I agree with El Chicharrero said, our link with Latin America is not only by language, but by blood, culture, religion and music. In Spain it's called Hispanidad. Even a Galician or a Catalonian that has never left Spain is linked to descendants of Galician and Catalonian immigrants that settled in Latin America. By the way, Spaniards do use the term "Hispanic" but it doesn't have the racial/ethnic meaning that Americans give it. There is no such thing as a "Hispanic" race. From the Latin name of the ancient Roman province Hispania it's a cultural adjective denoting Spain and everything Spanish. For the record, in Spain we have black people too among other races. While they're not racially Europeans, some go back 4, 5 generations or more in Spain and yes, they are Spanish.

I was born in Barcelona, but I'm more of a mix of at least 3 Northern Spanish Communities, and I find this whole discussion ridiculous. Linguistically, we maybe "Latin", but personally, I don't believe we share that much with Latins or Latin Americans. I believe it's the U.S. and the Spanish Speaking media in the US that has really confused most into thinking that Spaniards are ethnically the same as Latin Americans and Mexicans. Even though we may have somethings in common, there are more things in our culture that make us very, very different from eachother. Are we also forgetting about the people of Pais Vasco?...who have no real ties to Latin culture except the ones that were thrust upon them? Yes we do have Africans(dark or black) in Spain, racially, a lot of spaniards especially in the South have North and a little South African in them...that does not make for a good point. I don't believe we should use the term Latin for a racial or an ethnic term, Spain is a very, very diverse country, and for someone to argue that we all have so much in common with Latin Americans has dangerous implications. What about other countries that developed linguistically latin, like Italy, and Portugal, I've never heard them referred to as Latins anywhere. I love the United States, but...I blame this whole problem on them. -A

The article notes that 97% of Spainards are Catholic, however, a CIS survey (February, 2006) reported that 79.3 percent of Spanish citizens consider themselves Catholic. I also have multiple other sources showing that the percentage of catholic citizens is much lower than 97%. The same CIS survey notes that among the non-Catholics 11.7 percent said that they were agnostics, and 4.9 percent are athiest. So, can we change that in the article? Tmest88 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I came across this article. What does it mean? Are the Spanish, or the Iberians, the "most" European in terms of ancestry: haplogroup R1b

See also: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

Well, check out the sources on the ancestry section and past discussions and come to your own conclusion.:-) --Burgas00 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ancestry section does not mention these studies, which happpen to be fundamental to the genetic identity of the Spanish. Besides, it makes references to links to Norhtern Europe that are flawed, presenting them as if they had something to do with the Celts. It is not easy to understand that these studies are not even mentioned in that section, taking into account that these are probably the most distinct gentic markers of the Spanish. Around 80 percent of them have this marker, 90 percent in the Basque country, 80 percent in Northern Spain, 70 percent in Southern Spain. It traces back the ancestry of most Spaniards to the last Ice Age peoples of Iberia, 35000 years ago. HCC.

Spaniards have many different ancestries and there are many different genetic markers. 90% or 70% of people having one particular genetic marker does not mean that 90% of Spaniards descend solely from one prehistoric group of people. I and the majority of contributors to this site, (including those who have pretty much opposite views on the origins of Spaniards) think that the ancestry section should be left alone since it has enough sources already (sixteen- all university studies) and is pretty balanced. The excruciatingly long debate on this section has already been held and it was pretty hard to come to an agreement.

Obviously you have little knowledge of Spanish history (or human history in general) if you think that all Spaniards descend from people who arrived 35000 years ago. --Burgas00 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is an important 20% that do not have this genetic marker. What is relevant is the following:

1. This genetic marker is specific to Western Europe.

2. It is the most common genetic marker among Europeans.

3. Iberia has one of the largest concentrations of this marker.

4. Experts assert that the populations in Europe with this marker descend from Iberia.

Conclusion: Iberians do not only show one of the highest frequencies of this genetic marker, they are also the pater familias of the populations with this marker in the rest of Europe.

An outstanding discovery of modern genetic research that deserves some elaboration in a genetic section dealing the the Spanish.

As to the vadility of this type of marker, please read the following: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/18/10244.pdf

I have selected this from there:

The nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome has proven to be a valuable tool for the study of population history....

There you can read the reasons for the usefulness of these studies, supported by a real long list of scientists. HCC.

You can also read the following: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

As you can read, that marker is not considered any marker:

"It is considered Western Europe major lineage".

Obvioulsy there are other peoples that have contributed to the genetic pool of Western Europeans and Spaniards. In fact you can see there all the genetic markers identified in the world until now. For example, Y chromosome haplogroup j is especially present in the Middle East, North Africa and Ethiopia, and in the Mediterranean region of Europe: 20 percent in Southern Italy and 10 percent in Southern Spain. But the fact that the M173 or Haplogroup R is considered the major lineage is fundamental.

Haplogroup J arrived in the Italian peninsula from migrations which ocurred from the Balkans 10 000 years ago. Shouldnt the percentage of this haplotype be higher in Northern Italy than in Southern Italy considering that it arrived from the North (through present-day Slovenia)?? Or perhaps it is also the product of contacts with Southern Mediterranean populations, although this is unlikely since Italy was never under Islamic Rule (except for Sicily, for a relatively brief period of time).--Burgas00 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only recomnend you that you read the results of the Genographic project, of National Geographic. HCC.

You can also read there:

"The lineage is essentially defined by M173-carrying individuals who never acquired an additional marker. such as M17".

So, as I said, the fact that the piece of research that points out the main lineage of the Spanish is not elaborated on, while others which are minor in comparison are, does not speak well of the article, though I understand that it has been the result of a great effort.

The fact that modern research questions much of the assumptions held in the past and based on the limited historic times that could be recorded does not mean that we have to cling to them if they are proven wrong or limited. Science is always evolving and discovering new things, and we must keep up with it, especially in an Encyclopeadia. HCC.

---

Another question: what does the existence of R1b mean? If you notice, the structure of the section is such that all sources support a statement. What statement would your link support? I guess it could only prove that Spaniards are fundamentally European... But what else?? It only makes them "western european" in the sense that Iberia is the source of migrations to the north (from an iceage refuge) 35 000 years ago rather that vice versa.

In my opinion Iberia is the pater familias of the NON-INDOEUROPEAN component of European populations, since this component was the only one which was present on the continent during the Ice Age. This would really make sense if you think about it. But in any case this component must be a minority compared to the layers of IndoEuropean migrations which have mixed into this western european substratum. --Burgas00 10:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Burgass, you confuse fundamental things, and that way it is difficult to establish any communication. Indoeuropean is a linguistic family, it has nothing to do with the genetic aspect that we are discussiong here. Besides, in Europe, especially Western Europe, this European genetic marker is the majority genetic marker. Just read the sources well. There is something call argument of authority. Do not try to present your own personal opinions based on stupid banana scholarship stemming from the 19th century. No offense intended, just understand that trying to use the term Indoeuropean when talking about genetic affinities is absolutely out of place if we want to be serious.

If you want to speak about genetics, you can find all the main European and global genetic markers in the link that I gave above. If you want to speak about linguistic families, we should start onther section and another discussion. HCC.

I really dont understand what you are trying to say. I get your attacks, but not much else. What is the origin of R1b? At what stage was this haplotype introduced into Europe? I thought that Indoeuropeans were a group of people which moved into Europe from the East (including, greeks, latins, germanics, celts etc...) and mixed with different indigenous populations of Europe. Am I wrong? You claim that R1b arrived in Western Europe 35 000 years ago which means it has been present since before Indoeuropean invasions. It clearly has a preindoeuropean source, right? I am not saying anything out of the ordinary, I am simply making logical deductions from your own statements... In any case I dont know how this affects the assertions in the ancestry section... Where is my "stupid banana scholarship"? In what way have I irritated you? --Burgas00 14:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Burgass, I am sorry if you felt offended, but I will try to explain myself well:

Genetics is one thing, linguistic families another, they should not be confused and mixed in the same discussion. Ferdinand de Saussure, the most important linguist of the 19th century and father of European structural linguistics, much before genetic research was available, already pointed it out in his Cours de Linguistique General. By the 21st century that is already clear enough.

Since we are talking genetics here and not linguistics, you can find this link very useful, because you have there the main Genetic markers identified up to now in the world. You can obviously find all those found in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroups

As to your Indoeuropean comments, you could read haplogroup J2.

Anyway, as it indicates, it is not reliable to link genetics and linguistic families.

HCC

Well dude...whatever. If you have a problem with the ancestry section just say it here. Explain clearly what it is though. I, for one, will not support changing it since it is based on just about all the recent genetic studies of Spaniards there are, all from prestigious European and American Universities. All I know (and want to know) about R1b is that its a genetic marker originating in paleolithic northern Spain and later spreading throughout Europe... It is very common in Spain ,which is understandable since it originates in the north of the peninsula. This haplogroup is characteristic of the (linguistically non indoeuropean) Basque people who are genetically the closest of the original R1b population of only a few thousand. http://www.pbase.com/image/40434624

I shouldnt have got into yet another meaningless debate over ancestry. I really dont want to talk about this anymore. There are much more important parts of this article which need improvement.

--Burgas00 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem obssessed with using obsolete terms in genetics like Indo-European. You seem to just have graduated from the prestigious National Socialist School of Anthropology. You need some update my friend. If you cannot read all the information that is out there from reputable sources you have a big problem, either because you cannot understand or because you do not want to understand. HCC.

Those unfamiliar with HCC's argument style should now readThis

--Burgas00 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your are wrong. Maybe you do not know that, but a prominent school that made use of the term Indoeuropean in the 20th century (although the concept originated in the 19th century) to speak about genetics, or race as they called it, was the Nazi school. They called it Indo-European, actually Indogermanisch in German. That term is obsolete and meaningless is genetics and no one uses it with that meaning anymore, unless they are people influenced by that school, either conciously or unconciously. So, I think we are not going to understand each other, because we use obviously different registers. So, I will wait for other participants to come up and continue this interesting discussion. HCC.

If you have so much against the use of the term IndoEuropean as an ethnic group, why dont you help me convince user AlAndalus to erase it from the "related ethnic group" section. Have you not noticed that I have been arguing (together with Cassius00) with him over precisely this issue? Go to the section above the one you started and take our side! In any case it seems today its just you and me arguing and Im going out for dinner in 20 minutes.--Burgas00 18:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not refelct the basic genetic information about the Spanish. If you want basic information check these two sites:

https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

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

There you will find the latest on genetic research.

Some people delete things without discussing them. Please do not do that. HCC.

I have made a fundamental addition to the ancestry section that cannot be ignored in the light of the evidence available. I have taken this part from this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29#Connection_with_the_peopling_of_Europe

HCC

Have you not noticed there are 17 different sources and we have not gone into the arguments given by any of them? Or if you want we can return to a version where the ancestry section takes up 95% of the article. Please leave the section alone. It is fine as it is.--Burgas00 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you cannot compare all the partial studies that you have used with the global data that I am presenting. Wikipedia is based on reputable sources and verifibility. Global research is more important than the use of partial research for individual interpretations by Wikipedians. The article right now is ignoring the basics of 21st century genetic anthropology, something difficult to understand in a ancestry section that deals with genetics.

As to your comment ¨18 sources¨you can take any of the Haplogroups in the Hapmap and concentrate on it ad infinitum, so that the trees won´t let you see the forest. The right way can only be a global approach.

As to your comment¨you must be kidding me¨. Who is kidding you? National Geographic? The Hapmap? Scores of geneticists who are responsible for the Hapmap? O maybe you consider yourself an authority above all those mentioned, who uses partial research to reach own conlusions. I do not understand. HCC.

Discuss here Cassius. I cannot really understand that such basic information wants to be removed or played down. HCC.

Well I looked up "haplotypes+iberia" on google and the first study which I found was the following: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40867/40867.text.html?erFrom=8927695716147187323Guest So apparently we Spaniards are definitely not all R1b.

In any case, HCC can you simply condense (on this talk page first) those 2 paragraphs you wrote into one line? We are not quite sure what you are trying to say, you talk about the Ice Age, England, Norway, the Cro Magnon etc... What are you trying to say? It is an ancestry section on Wikipedia and conclusions must be made from the genetic studies available. A debate must not be played out on the article itself.--Cassius80 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cassius, I cannot open that link. In any case:

1. The Hapmap is as recent of 2005 and it compiles the results of scores of geneticists.

2. All Spaniards are not Rb1. Most of them are. Nowhere in Europe is there a higher presence of that Haplogroup. The other Haplogroups present in Spain account for many other peoples that have settled in Spain.

3. The results of the Rb1 male Haplogroup is consistent with the results of the H female haplogroup. It is the most common in Europe and its highest concentration is in Spain again.

4. Both Haplogroups originated in Spain. Look well in the Genographic project.

5. Those results of the Hapmap are consistent with the Genographic poject of National Geographic. Go to genetic markers and click on RB1b Y Chromosome haplogroup.

6. The Genographic project is much more powerfull than any work undertaken yet by any individual, team or university. It is headed by Cavalli-Sforza. I think you know who is Cavalli-Sforza, with the participation of IBM, using for this project its most powerful computers.

I hope that you will understand the scope of the data that I am presenting and the results of 21st century genetic anthropology.

Before I made these comments I introduced the change again. You are right, let us discuss here first.

HCC.

And does that mean that a majority of Spaniards are descended soley from these Cromagnon people? (I am not an expert on genetics) Or does it simply mean that some of the ancestors of those who are R1b were these people? ( I think I read somewhere that it means that the father of the father of the father was so-and-so, correct me if im wrong) I still think a whole paragraph is too much for this point. You mean that there was a group of Cromagnon which originated in Spain who expanded throughout much of Europe and particularly Western Europe?

The link I posted is another study on Haplogroups E and J (I came across it randomly). It has maps which show that haplotypes E, E-M35, E-M78 and EM81 are very frequent in Iberia. The study is called "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area" so you can find it on Google.

Anyways, I agree with Burgas that we must avoid any more additions to the section but if this source is, as you say, so important, we can discuss it and include it but translating it into plain English and keeping it to one line.

--Cassius80 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--Cassius80 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cassius, read please well the links that I have indicated. You will find a lot of your answers there. All haplogroups that you can find in the Hapmap are frequent in Spain. That is why they are in the Hapmap: they represent a significant per cent. They are also present across Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I think you can see that yourself and we do not have to discuss each of the Haplogroups present in Spain, Europe or elsewhere. Just look at the female haplogroups, we would never end. I never said that the only haplogroup is RB1 for males or H for females. I think you can see that as well. But I do not understand about the one line. I mean: I do not understand that you want to devote so much space to the conclusions that you have arrived yourself using partial studies and a line to the conclusions drawn not by me, but by the Hapmap scientists and the powerful Genographic project, that is updating continuously. HCC.

HCC : WHAT CONCLUSION? Cant you just say what this conclusion is? In one line??? What is the point, relating to the ancestry of Spaniards. We have already said they are 1)Caucasoid and Mediterranean,2) relatively but not completely homogenous, 3)with some genetic imput from North Africa and 4) with some relation to peoples of the western fringe of Europe. I read what you write but it is rambling, there is no basic point. Sure, whatever, the Genographic project is the best and super powerful, but this is irrelevent to the structure of the section.--Cassius80 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that? The section is about ancestry and genetics and about genetic anthropology. It is as if we want to speak about economics but we claim that the GDP figures are not important. How can you claim it is irrelevant to the section?. I really do not understand your point. HCC.

Cant you say something like "R1b is very common in Iberia, being the source of this haplogroup which spread throughout Western Europe after the Ice Age". Anyways we will discuss this some other time. Im not going to change your edits for the moment, but it cant stay like that in my opinion.--Cassius80 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have shortened it a lot and tried to make it easier to understand. We could leave it like this:

It should be noted, however, that most Spaniards can trace their paternal and maternal lineages to the early settlers of the Iberian Peninsula, carriers of the male R1b and the female H haplogroups, which are the most frequent haplogroups in Europe. The people with these Iberian genetic markers colonized all of Western Europe about 10,000 years ago. See: 6, [7] and Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b

I think that you have already realized the importance of these discoveries by recent 21st century genetic anthropology. They are a milestone in anthropology not only because they reveal the origins of most Spaniards, but also of most Europeans, who happen to be much more diverse than it was previously thought.

Since I think that you are not very familiar with genetic anthropology, I would heartily recommend that you follow the Genographic Project in the link that I indicated, if you are interested in these matters. It is the most exciting thing that has been done up to now in this field, and they are updating information all the time. National Geographic has been awarded this year (a few days ago) the Principe de Asturias prize for their work, which as you know is the most prestigious prize awarded in Spain for these issues.

By the way, if you can spare 100 dollars, they send you a kit, you send it back, and they tell you what haplogroup you are and they keep you posted about new discoveries related to your ancestors. HCC.

EPF: Well we are still discussing this with HCC and he may have a point. His new version is better and I guess it is an important source. On the other hand, the phrase "most Spaniards can trace their paternal and maternal lineages to the early settlers of the Iberian Peninsula, carriers of the male R1b and the female H haplogroups, which are the most frequent haplogroups in Europe" could be considered a redundancy since in the older version it is clearly established that Spaniards cluster in the European group of genetic diversity. HCC perhaps all you are doing is emphasizing a point that is already mentioned. Also the style of the section is to use genetic studies to come to conclusions without mentioning the content of the studies themselves.--Cassius80 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit lost here. You mention EPF and then me, but I do not see EPF. Anyway:

1. The fact that I have a point is out of question for anyone who knows well recent genetic anthropology. I am happy that you begin to see that as well.

2. I could question a lot of the things that you say in the present version, and I am not doing that: for example:

a) You are mixing concepts like geography, culture and genetics:

a.1 Of course the Spanish a a Mediterranean people from the point of view of geography, and culture.

a.2 But from the genetic point of view they do not have more in common wiht the other Mediterraneans, as a whole, than with the Atlantic facade of Europe.

The section is full of references that are based on partial studies here and there, therefore I do not understand why you are making such a big issue of presenting something that is crucial and global to this issue from a genetic point of view, because I am sure that you are not biased and you want to present reputable, verifiable and balanced information that sheds light on the whole issue.

As to the phrase

"most Spaniards can trace their paternal and maternal lineages to the early settlers of the Iberian Peninsula, carriers of the male R1b and the female H haplogroups, which are the most frequent haplogroups in Europe"

I have tried to be as precise as you can be. These markers detect precisely that, maternal and paternal lienages. To say that it has already been said because of the European diversity is wrong. We are speaking here of genetic markers that are specific to Iberians, but not to all Europeans in the same way, though they have more of other European genetic markers like the I haplogroug or the R1a haplogroup, or other haplogroups that entered Europe later, from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, which are now European as well.

---

Well I see now EPF comments. I would like to know why he thinks that that is POV. I really do not understand. I mean, the Hapmap is POV?. National Geographic? or I? Why is this my POV? I remember that EPF supported a version that was more correct in my opinion as well, placing the Spanish genetically in the Atlantic zone. The guy who did it seemed to know a lot about the issue, but he failed to present the evidence that I am presenting now. So, why did he support his version and he says that mine is POV? I could present more evidece:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

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

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

http://www.dnaheritage.com/ysnptree.asp (this Hapmap is interesting because it is interactive, though it does not separate the R1a and the R1b male haplogroups adn is from 2003)

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp (this link is interesting because it shows the spread of Rb1 from Spain into Western Europe)

This part is especially interesting:

---

If we fast forward to 12,000 years ago (Map 2), the ice has retreated and the land has become much more supportive to life. Many animal species have returned to inhabit the land, although the snake, harvest mouse and mole never made it as far as Ireland before the land bridges re-flooded (ever wondered why there are no snakes in Ireland?).

See image: http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_2.jpg

The three groups of humans had taken refuge for so long that their DNA had naturally picked up mutations, and consequently can be defined into different haplogroups. As they spread from these refuges, Haplogroups R1b, I and R1a propagated across Europe.

- Haplogroup R1b is common on the western Atlantic coast as far as Scotland.

- Haplogroup I is common across central Europe and up into Scandinavia.

- Haplogroup R1a is common in eastern Europe and has also spread across into central Asia and as far as India and Pakistan.

These three major haplogroups account for approx 80% of Europe's present-day population.

---

And I could really flood this place with reputable and verifiable sources, but I think the sources that I have presented at the beginning are more than enough for their importance in this field.

I hope all this new informaton can really help people update and not stick to concepts from the 19th and the 20th century, that in many cases are being proven just wrong.

Anyway, Cassius, I have reduced it to three lines. I think tha the relationship between the importance of this content and the space devoted is not good, but because I think that 3 lines is not enough. Still, I have made this effort. How would you propose to word it?

I will wait 6 hours. Then I will introduce the shortened three line version.

HCC.

I do not agree with you, HCC. I think you exagerate the importance of 2 classical markers while dismissing all other studies as "partial". How can more genetic markers be partial and less be more complete? You are not making sense. Besides, I have the impression that your interest in this issue is biased, trying to show Spaniards as a pure primeval European race or something. As for your comment that Spaniards have more in common with the peoples of the Atlantic Facade of Europe than with the Mediterranean, I can only conclude that either you have never been to Spain or, if you are a Spaniard, you have never visited the countries of the "Atlantic Facade of Europe."--Burgas00 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Burgass, I do not know why you say I am biased or want to imply anything about purity. What purity? Just look at the Hapmap of the Spanish or of any other people. If the Spanish or anybody else are something, is just what we all are, a mixture of a lot of different peoples and lineages, and if you go all the way down (see origins of RB1) the Spanish and everybody else come from Africa. You are very wrong if you think I am going that way. I do not dismiss your studies, I only said they are partial because there are many Haplogroups and genetic influences in Spain, and to see the big picture we have to present them like I have done, globally. Otherwise, we would need the entire encyclopeadia to analyse all of them. I think I have presented good evidence, from verifiable and reputable sources. This information is really more important than you seem to believe. Genetics is really opening a lot of new perspectives in anthropology. This information is out there, it is not my information. As I have already pointed out, if you are interested in these matters I would recommend that you follow all these new findings. They are being done by the most important authorities in genetic anthropology. This is not my self-research. And if the informaiton is verifiable, reputable and speaks of the Spanish, I do not understand why you have that interest in that information not being here. I do not accuse you of bias, like you do with me, but I do not understand you. And I think you are missing something. I am not telling you to erase your comments or sources. You are telling me to do that with mine. As to your comment about the Atlantic Facade of Europe, here you have more evidence. I do not know how much more you need (I think that you have already realized that we are talking genetics here). See: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm HCC

Ok perhaps I should assume good faith. But the bias is not in the info you present. No quality source is biased. It is in the way of presenting it. Anyways do not think the other sources are "mine". Other wikipedians presented them, not me. So far all I have done is to try to avoid confrontation and to make sure the info is presented in a way that is understandable and its sources do not conflict with each other. What you insist in including and highlighting is already there, in sources 10, 14 and 18, for example. You want to talk about Y-chromosomes and Mtdna?R1b (ot RB1 as you say)? Why not about alu insertions and erythrocyte genetic markers? The whole point of the section is so as NOT to mention genetics in the main body of the article. Why can you not understand this? --Burgas00 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Burgass, the section is about ancestry and is based on genetics. Most of the other references speak of this, by the way, in most cases using the male and female haplogroups, which is right, because it is the most reliable genetic marker to detect ancestry. I have done the same, but taking into acount all the markers present in Spain, not just a few. Taking into account the relevance of this information and its global nature, it would be just incredible to underplay it or just to ignore it. Or just say that references that speak of some haplogroups are O.K. but those that account for all of them together are not. And I have only used three lines. Besides, like all encyclopeadias, but especially this one, it is important to present updated information. I have presented the most recent. HCC:

Ok... But you said it. The REFERENCES speak of genetics. Not the section itself. I think Cassius already mentioned this to you. The idea of the section is to extrapolate. Otherwise it wont be stable and wikipedians will start adding more stuff and the whole section will collapse into gibberish. (it has happened before).--Burgas00 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let us see this version:

It should be noted, however, that according to recent genetic anthropology, most Spaniards can trace their ancestors to the early settlers of the Iberian Peninsula. These early peoples are believed to have arrived in Spain about 35.000 years ago, where they stayed for 25.000 years before recolonizing all of Western Europe, when the Ice Age came to an end, nearly 10.000 years past. 18, Haplogroup R1b and Origins of haplogroup R1b.

I still think that the perspective of the article does not reflect well the nature of facts, still, I do not want to go over all of that again. I hope that now, doing as you say, you can find this version acceptable. HCC.

This section is also very wrong. To say that the Iberians arrived in Spain 4000 years ago and that they were the earliest settlers of the country etc. is again 19th century history. I think we soould look for a wording to introduce this section that takes into account the presence of settlers much before that, as per the evidence available and that I have presented. HCC.

Well you are right here. But, it depends on the definition of Iberians. Iberians can mean Iberians (the group which settled eastern Spain 4000 years ago) or it can mean all pre-indoeuropean peoples which settled the peninsula (including basques, Tartessians, Iberians etc...) In any case the history of preindoeuropean Iberia is quite mysterious...--Burgas00 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here I think we should introduce also all the Spanish speaking coutries. They should be there the same as the Hispanics of the United States. since the list would be very long we could say something like Latin America. I do not know if we could also include the Phillipines, and maybe even Equatorial Guinea and the former Spanish Sahara, though these last two cases may be stretching it too much. HCC.

Burgass, those links are not redundant. They are fundamental. In some cases there are up to 7 links about one aspect and you think these are redundant?

I consider them redundant in the sense that we explain the origin of R1b in the section itself. If we hadnt, they would be, as you say, fundamental. When there are, as you mention, 7 links for one aspect, it is to support statements which are controversial (e.g. Basques have gentic differences with Castilians). The issue of R1b is not controversial (u wont find editors attempting to deny its existence) and it is explained and highlighted well enough in the section.

As for other edits, as I have explained:

• Alpujarras is in Southern Spain, Alicante or Cartagena is in South East.
• Adding "Maybe, a maximum of perhaps" 7% to a statement we don't like is not serious. Actually the maximum established by that same study is 14%. Also both attempts to edit this paragraph have led to problems with syntax.
• I agree with Xingtao's recent edits which were more focused on giving coherence to the section and inserting HCCs sources throughout, rather than attempting to highlight or downplay one particular issue.

However what made me --Burgas00 07:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you think that the thing with R1b is not controversial, because I had quite a controversy with you. There are 31 links in the first two paragraphs, and you think that 3 in the last one is too much. I have been very patient with you, but I think that you have a huge agenda. At the start you denied all this evidence, starting with your "are you kidding me" and now that you cannot ignore all the evidence you try to downplay it as much as you can. Use your glasses as to the percentages (besides I did not introduce them, I said most. If you want to introduce them do not manipulate like you are doing from the start). You can number the links if you want, but leave them there. If you want to insist on the percentages like you have been doing with every thing else, leave my original version "most", and that's it. You are being extremely dishonest.

As for the other edits, I have nothing to do with them. But you seem to be obssessed with that part. See the hapmaps, whichever you want. Those haplogroups are just one of the many found in spain, especially in the female haplogroups. Why that insistence on that particualar one? In fact, those haplogroups are present all across Europe, even with much higher percentages in Greece and Italy, and even in central Europe, with countries like Germany with a significant amount, because genetic anthropology is demonstrating that peoples, all peoples, are much more related than it was previously thought. You are extremely biased, that is the only explanation here. You should go to other places for your propaganda. HCC.

No agenda whatsoever, HCC. In fact, I think I have not changed any of your edits. Apart from removing the last 2 R1b things (Actually the main reason I didnt like them was because they werent numbered). But we can keep them if you like. The reference to the U6 haplogroup is because it is another controversial issue, related to the Al Andalus period. It is a NorthWest African berber haplogroup of recent arrival (not present in Italy or Greece by the way). Please dont accuse me of propaganda. If you look at the history of this article, I have not included any sources myself. I have only attempted to make sense of them and reach some form of consensus. Why do you attack me when I agree with you on pretty much everything except on style? Btw, please read the studies properly, NW african contribution to Y chromosomes is as low as 1% and as high as 14% according to study. Mtdna contribution is as low as 8% and as high as 26%. I think "around" is more accurate than "up to maybe as high as"... Although I dont think it was you who made these edits. There are other parts of this article which need more attention than the ancestry section. I am getting bored of it, as I imagine you are. --Burgas00 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On frequency of Haplogroup H in Spain please read this. http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Achilli2004.pdf

This is a minor issue, but a lot of minor issues make up a big issue. You pick individual articles instead of looking at hapmaps that have been done taking into acount scores or hundreds of studies. According to the 2005 Macdonald hapmap, it is around 60% (Haplogroup H). See it yourself. Spain is the place where that haplogroup is the most frequent. Still, 68% is the percentage for Rb1 for Southern Spain, if you add up northern Spain it is well over 70 %. As to the Berber haplogroup, look well at the 2005 Macdonald hapmap. In Greece, Italy, the Balcans, the Austrian and Hungary area, it is much larger that in Spain. In France, Germany, etc it is significant. It is believed that this influence comes from the Neolithic migrations. In Spain, on top of this influence, it is logical to believe that more recent Berber elements were added on top of the individuals carrying the same haplogroup, but geneticists cannot distinguish them from the older ones. In any case, they are the same lineage, whether older or more recent. In the case of Greece, about 25% of the population have the same genetic lineage as the Berbers, and this lineage played also an important role in the places that I have mentioned. If the 2005 Macdonald hapmap is again not enough for you, try the Genographic project or any other hapmap. Stop using individual studies because they can vary. Only results based on many others are reliable, because they try to reach consensus and average scores of other studies. HCC.

68% is from a Madrid sample and the only available Y-chromosome study for Spain. This sample is representative of Spain as a whole due to immigration to the state's capital. As for Mtdna the figure for H is 39% (pretty low compared to most other European countries). The Hapmap does not really tell me anything (especially in the case of Mtdna) since one does not know what populations those pies represent. I think that the pie hovering somewhere over Southwestern Europe represents a sample from the Spanish Basque country (around 52% H) but that is only my own speculation. I suspect from your statements that your understanding of human genetics is relatively limited. And your spelling mistakes in English show that Spanish is your mother language. Are you sure its not you who has a certain agenda? I personally don't want to talk about this anymore (at least not for some time).--Burgas00 21:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss anything more either. The only one who has shown no knnowledge of this is you. Shall I go back to our previous discussions. You either have a big agenda or have no sense of proportion when writing articles. But of course I am not going to engage in an endless discussion here with you about percentages. I am going to state a fact: most is 50% + 1, so leave it like that. As to whom I am is none of your business. This is not a personals page. HCC.

I'm the trouble maker - I will not make any more such edits. Just confounded by the 7% for Y chromosomes attributed to a North African source when 18% X chromes are attributed to the same source? Could twice as many Berber women have immigrated to Iberia than men or am I just misunderstanding the meaning of these figures? 210.49.196.39 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it obviously does not make any sense, but this is what you get when you try and pick from here and there. There are global studies about the Iberians and the Spanish that have been done by many experts, but some people here think that they can take one partial study here and one there and draw their own conclusions. anyway, I do not want to give the impression that I want to underplay the role of Berbers in the Spanish genetic pool. It can be seen in the hapmap for the Spanish, though I have already commented on that. But just look at the hapmap, then look at the article and the links, and tell me if you think that the article is balanced. HCC.

HCC, I warned you about the dangers of adding genetic info on the article. Now the section is again the subject of a huge dispute! The dispute doesnt seem to be about any concrete point. I remind you and Burgas00 that the title of the section is "ancestry" not "genetic make-up". HCC Im going to revert your last edit (only) since it contradicts a presented source. If it was up to me I would revert the article (and talk page) to about 3 weeks ago.--Cassius80 09:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cassius, the article is full of genetic material since the beginning and much before I took part in this discussion, and it has always been unbalanced. One needs to have a basic sense of proportion and rhetorics to see that. The 39 % figure is again another example, confusing miscellaneous for average (by someone who boasts such a good command of English), while at the same time ignoring and underplaying the hapmaps. It is this kind of behaviour, always trying to clutch to data in a manipulative way that I find suspicious. Still, I have no problem with it. Leave it like that if you want, I am not going to discuss every detail to exhaustion.

I also think that there are other parts of the article that need improving. For example, in the light of the evidence that we have today, we cannot say that the earliest inhabitants of Spain arrived just 4000 years ago. We should do something there. I do not think that a big change is necessary, just one or two lines at the beginning, but please do not continue to use 19th century concepts to speak about this. I also would like to hear some opinions about my comments on the related ethnic group section. HCC.

HCC, I agree with you here. And we should have a truce regarding the ancestry section. We are getting too hostile and should give the issue a break:-). I think our argument is more related to our understanding of human genetics as a whole rather than any particular point on the section. I did not mean to attack you on your english, which seems no worse than mine. I only noticed you were Spanish when you wrote "Balcans". Hope you enjoyed your sunday.--Burgas00 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Burgass, peace. I am always ready to recognize that people have different perspectives. HCC.

Here you have this link, where you can find updated information for the background section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania

I have copied and pasted this part:

The Iberian peninsula has long been inhabited, first by Early Hominids, such as Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo antecessor. In the Paleolithic period, the Neanderthal enters Iberia and there will eventually take refuge from the advancing migrations of Modern Humans. In the 40th millennium BC, during the Upper Paleolithic and the Last Ice Age, the first large settlement of Europe by Modern Humans occurs, these where Nomadic Hunter-gathereres coming from the of the Steppes of Central Asia, characterized by the M173 mutation in the Y chromosome, defining them as an Haplogroup R population. When the Last ice age reached its maximum extent, during the 30th millennium BC, these modern humans took refuge in Southern Europe, namely in Iberia, coming from Southern France. Here, this genetically homogeneous population (characterized by the M173 mutation in the Y chromosome), will develop the M343 mutation, giving rise to the R1b Haplogroup, still dominant in modern Portuguese and Spanish populations. In the millennia after this event, the Neanderthal became extinct and local Modern human cultures thrived, producing Pre-historic Art such as the one in L'Arbreda Cave and in the Valley of Foz Côa.

HCC.

I don't want to seem that I am constantly disagreeing with you. But isnt this all a bit too prehistoric? 40 000 years ago is a long time ago.... --Burgas00 09:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should divide the historical section into subsections. This way we could have a subsection (the first one) on prehistoric iberia.--Burgas00 09:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we have two choices:

1. Just a couple of lines, to avoid the contradiction that the first settlers arrived just 4000 years ago.

2. Do as you say, with subsections: that would of course be more complicated.

In fact, I would just go for a couple of lines.

HCC.

Yes me too. I dont like the other related people section. Perhaps we should have one section on the cultural diversity of Spain (languages etc...) and another on the Latin Americans as related people.

Another question which should be tackled is the meaning of Spanish ethnicity. Are Catalans or Basques Spanish? What does it mean to be Spanish? The issue is tackled (perhaps excessively) in the French people page.

--Burgas00 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are Spanish. We should not confuse Spanish with Castilian. They are not Castilian. Spanish would be the equivalent of British. You can be British but also English or Welsh. You are Spanish but also Castilian, Basque, etc. Somethig else is the language used by some regionalist and nationalist movements. But that is politics. If one day the Basques or the Catalans become an independent nation, then they would not be Spanish anymore. I think the question is not really that hard. We should not confuse the legitimate desires of some people with facts. HCC.

Well that is your opinion. I happen to agree with it but not everyone does. It is a complicated issue which should be tackled. According to you Spanish is a nationality based on citizenship rather than ethnicity. Are berber Spaniards from Ceuta or Melilla also "Spanish" according to your definition?--Burgas00 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are Spanish. Spaniards, like most peoples, are made up of different peoples who have settled in their territories. The ancestors of a lot of Spaniards may have been in the land for 30.000 or 40.000 thousand years, others for 8.000 years, others for just a few hundred years. They are all Spaniards. The fact that we search the ancestry of people does not mean that some are more Spanish than others. Gypsies are believed to have been in Spain for about 500 years, and they are as Spanish (and in some cases feel more Spanish) as those who may have been there for 30.000 years. In short, an ethnic Spaniard is anyone who is a Spanish citizen. Ethnic Spaniards are the sum of all those people and taking into account the rate of immigration in Spain now, ethnic Spaniards are going to become more and more diverse in the years to come. Something else is how one particular person may feel about their identity, but if you are a Spanish citizen, you are Spanish. Maybe I should also underline two things:

1. Ethnicity is not race.

2. The concept of race itself is becoming quite confusing with recent genetic research.

HCC.

• Confusing with modern genetic research ? Population genetics again is in very early development, but from the findings so far, "race" and ethnicity are actually becoming alot more clarified (and indeed they are related to varying degrees). Ethnic Spaniards are NOT simply Spanish citizens or nationals and the vast majority of people, including Spaniards will disagree with your contrasting opinion on this. Ethnic Spaniards claim common descent and kinship from the very origins of their culture and identity and are a combination of the paleolithic, neolithic and later peoples of pre-Roman Iberia. The Romans brought Latin language and culture that fused with native Iberian language and culture to form the basis for Spanish culture and identity. Incursions from the Arabs left a cultural influence and a much smaller demographic one, but later settlements of peoples were either absorbed or deported into the native Spanish population (unless they maintained a distinct culture and identity like the Gitanos/Roma). Why is it that far left-wing, assimilationist and ethnic nihilist POV is so rampant on these pages ? And you're saying their isnt an agenda among some people to change European peoples disinct cultural and ethnic identities ? Sorry HCC, you are completely incorrect on this matter and maybe you should read more into ethnicity and anthropology in general before making such ludicras claims. Epf 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Four things you need to remember:

1. Nationality and citizenship are separate from ethnicity/ethnic origin (except in a few cases, such as in Germany during the 20th cent.)

2. Ethnicity and "race" are somewhat related concepts, but obviously not the same

3.The concept of "race" is in fact becoming alot clearer with early (and still inconclusive) population genetics research.

4. Ethnicity is largely based on Kinship and Descent resulting in inherited (either biologically or socially) cultural, behavioural, religious, genotypic, phenotypic, familial, etc. traits.

Epf 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps the whole ancestry section should be scrapped... How terrible... after all that effort!

In any section a new section should be created explaining the issue of Spain's sub ethnicities including basques, catalans, castilians and andalusians. In this new section we should paste in the paragraph on the Roma which is in the history section. And something should be added on immigration and its effect on modern Spain...

What do you think?

Should the Spanish people page be modeled on the French people page? Without being so pedantic though...

I agree with you on the ethnicity issue. In Enlish Wikipedia many people seem to confuse ethnicity with race.

• yes many do confuse them in several languages, but the concepts are still related, and being born and raised in Spain doesn't make you an ethnic Spaniard. Epf 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Its good to have Spaniards working on this article. I am not Spanish although I know Spain almost as if it was my own country. --Burgas00 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, Burgas, I will not let you turn this into anything like the French people page and I will fight tooth and nail to not let such a thing happen. That page is a disgrace and is only in its state because French Republican government policies made it such (if the government doesnt recognize it, its difficult to argue against it). This is not the case in Spain, and ethnic Spaniards are those who are indigenous to Spain and trace their roots, culture and histories primarily to it. HCC is pushing a radical version of POV that is similar to that of Lapaz on the French people article. They have a racist, left-wing, assimilationist POV trying to make nations like Spain and France look like nations of immigrants like those in the New World, ignoring the phenotypic, genotypic , cultural and ancestral distinctiveness of ethnic Spaniards, Basques and other ethnic groups, both native and foreign, who inhabit Spain. I, along with most humans, appreciate diversity and maintaining ethnic distinctiveness, and strongly oppose assmilationist, melting-pot opinions which threaten such. HCC, I dont make such a statement often, but your completely wrong in this case and if you want to go toe to toe on this, you can just ask Burgas about my long debates with a simlar user to you on the French people article. Take your ignorant POV somewhere else, cheers. Epf 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We will see in 30 years time which concept of Ethnicity prevails in Europe. Anonymous User: 196.206.242.166

Yeah we will, and it will be the same definition of ethnic group as is now, especially considering these groups have been around for hundreds and thousands of years. Epf 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Epf it is very dodgy, at least in Europe where I am, to accuse people of "Leftist assimilationism", it makes you sound like a Neo-Nazi, which I know you are not. You shouldnt accuse HCC of ignorance when he is talking of his own country. He simply explains that Spain and Spanishness is a concept not based on ethnic or racial grounds but on political loyalty to a state. That is why one can be ethnic Catalan or Basque and still be Spanish. Actually in the basque country whether one is Spanish or not seems to be a matter of personal choice, same goes for Catalonia. In this sense being Spanish means the same as being British rather than English or Welsh. --Burgas00 10:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Burgas, your right about the leftist accusations, and I will tone that down. I'm not even a rightist, and generally consider myself to be a moderate. HCC just made some points that were similar to user: Lapaz, who I am almost positive supports far-left wing ideologies. In any case, I didnt mean any offense by it, ciao. Epf 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that some people tend to think in simplistic terms, using the all or nothing concepts. I still think that ethnic Spaniards are a sum of people, not a substraction of people. We can say things like most Spaniards to refer to genetics, religion, culture, language, but never all Spaniards. Those simplistic concepts are OK to speak about small tribes, for example, but large nations are much more complex than a tribe, and we cannot use this concept when speaking of large nations. To say that a person who has been born and raised in Spain is not an ethnic Spaniard because his parents were not or because he is not a Christian, for example, is bad reasoning. Ethnicity is not a monolithic object. If there are 40 million Spaniards, the sum of each of those Spaniards is a Spaniard as an abstraction, something complex, but Spain, like most nations is complex. Now, I repeat, we can use the term most or the majority, but to try and exclude people is wrong from all points of view, especially in the Europe that is coming fast at us. Anyway, I do not think it is a big issue. Things can be explained in a few words and most people will understand that the Spanish are a sum of people. Most of them have been there for a long time and others have joined the community over the centuries and continue to do so and in the years to come, in Spain and in most developed nations this is going to happen even more often, that´s it. As to the point of whether spain is a nation of immigrants, of course, it is not in the same way as the American countries, but Spain has now 4 million immigrants from all regions of the world, about 10% of the population if I am not mistaken, and their children will become Spaniards. As to the comment of being a radical leftist, we certainly have here a cultural gap. I know that the way many Europeans think sounds radical and leftist to many Americans, and it seems to may Canadians, but the way many Americans think, especially in relation to issues of politics and race usually sounds far right to many Europeans. HCC.

• I think that's your own personal opinon (and incorrect one I might add) that we in North America think "differently" than most Europeans, especially since most of us are European or of European descent. I know many people from Europe, have family from Europe and have been to Europe and can tell you many people - if not most - disagree with you. This is especially obvious since there is unfortunately a rise in nationalist movements and parties again in Europe. The main problem here HCC is that you speak of someone being "Spanish" in terms of where one was born or the culture he/she lives in. You have to learn to distinguish between Spanish people who are ethnic Spaniards, including Castilians, Galicians, and Catalans who are indigenous to Iberia, and Spanish people who are of non-native ethnic origin. The Basques, in my opinion, should not really even be included in this article since they consider themselves a separate people from other Spanish and this especially makes sense considering they are a pan-national ethnic group in both Spain and France. To say they are a "sub-ethnicity" of the larger Spanish group is even offensive to many Basques, especially nationalist radicals. I think all the fuss here is based on the fact that these pages are called Spanish people, French people, etc. rather than simply "Spaniards" or "ethnic Spanish", or "ethnic French". The label of "people" therefore affects some, especially those from these countries who are of immigrant descent or ethnicity, since it implies that they are separate from or have no connection with their current country of residence or birth. This in turn causes many particular worry, as is the case with the French people article, of being discriminated against. I don't think it is merely a coincidence that the "French people" article was all mangled and edited to its current state right around the same time as the immigrant riots in Paris and other areas of France. I basically think more needs to be done to clarify the scope of these articles, especially in a time where most Western European countries are still receiving a significant amount of non-European immigrants. Epf 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you so much. I know that there are Spaniards who can trace their roots to Spain for centuries and others whose ancestors came recently from elsewhere (and this is valid for all Europeans). As I said, just a couple of lines can account for those things without having to devote much of the article to it, since there are of course Spaniards that can be considered "native" to the country, but the others are also Spaniards that are adding up to the Spanish ethnicity, because, as I said, it is not a monolithic thing.

There are others who are Spaniards, yes, but not ethnic Spaniards, and they may be contributing to Spanish political or national culture, but not to ethnic Spanish culture (i.e. that is native to Spain). Those Spaniards of non-native origins also have their own proud distinct cultures and ethnic origins which they also identify with, usually more so. Spain may be becoming more multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, but ethnic Spanirds are not (as is the case with most ethnic groups, especially those who reatin their relative homogeneity). Kinship and descent isnt just about genetics, it is one of the bases for ethnic identification and involves various traits associated with one's descent and familial heritage. Epf 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the Basques, I do not agree. In fact, if you are familiar with Spanish history, the Basque country has never been an independent entity. Even before the creation of the kingdom of Spain, more that 500 years ago, the Basque country was part of the kingdom of Castile. The Spanish language itself developed in the North of Spain, among Basque speakers: the five Spanish vowels are of Basque origin, the preposition used before direct objects in Spanish is of Basque origin, the loss of initial "f" sounds in many words that account to differences like "higo in Spanish and figue, figo or fig" in other Romance languages is of Basque origin, important parts of the vocabulary, etc. The first written texts that were different enough from Latin to be considered Spanish appeared in the IX and X centuries among comments written in Spanish and Basque together. Basque nationalism only came about in the 19th century as a result of Romantic ideas. It never existed before. If fact, many Spaniards, and many Basques (many Basques want independence but many others do not) consider the Basques the "purest" native Spaniards, because they have been more isolated than the others, conserving a language that predates the Romans. I think there is a lot of ignorance about the Basque question, and a lot of Baques would certainly feel offended if they are said to be other than Spanish, while at the same time being Basque, and although the Basque language spread across into France, its main area of usage was across an important part of Spain, much larger than the present-day one. as to the Basque language, there is also a lot of ignorace: it is not a language, it is a small language family. In fact there are as many as seven Basque varieties. In spain, the regional Basque government has put together a Basque idiom in an artificial way, to try and unite this language family. In fact, following the same principles, languages like Portuguese and Spanish could be considered varieties of the same language, and the Portuguese and the Spanish the same people. As to this last question, there is an old minority movement that feels that the Spanish and the Portuguese are the same nation. Portuguese itself originated in Northern Spain and it is an official language there in the form of Galician. So, these questions are much more complex than most people seem to think. HCC.

There is no doubt that these questions can be complex, but your view towards them in some ways makes them even more confusing. Galician-Portuguese originated in what is now northern Portugal and Galicia, not merely in "northern Spain". The Portuguese branch separated distinctly anyways since it originated and was influenced from a separate Iberian region, Lusitania. As you say, only a radical minority in Spain consideres the Portuguese and Spanish a single people anyway, but more importantly this view is practically non-existant in Portugual itself. As to your opinion on the Basques, I find it quite confusing and misunderstood to be honest. The majority of Basques would consider themselves Basque first and last, and many without even being described as "Spanish". There is no doubt Spanish language and culture has much Basque influence and this is expected as they are the oldest inhabitants of the Iberian region. They however have maintained a seprate identity in their region for all that time, even with the arrival of the Neolithic invaders who would become the ancient Iberians (and significant ancestors of modern Castilians, Catalans, etc.). The Basque country itself has long been in the territory it is today, including the South-west of France and the presence of the Basques in that region isnt merely the spread of language, they have always inhabited it and, just as in Spain, had an influence on surrounding dialects/languages, most notably the Gascon dialect of Occitan. Indeed the majority of Basques and many Spaniards consider the Basques to be the purest Iberians in the sense they have been there the longest and can still trace most of their ancestry to those original peoples. This is exactly why most Basques, especially nationalists would not consider themselves "Spanards" in the modern sense as it implies they are the same as the other Iberian peoples of Spain. With the homeland of the Basques crossing into both France and Spain (and this always has been so) there is even more reason to why so many do not consider themselves "Spaniards". As with regards to Basque nationalism itself, indeed the large rise did begin in the 18th-19th centures (as with much ethnic natoinalism) in the sense that the people sought more autonomy and independence from both Spain and France. To say "it never existed before" however, is your own POV that has no factual basis and ethnic nationalism could in fact have roots daintg back to the very origins of these ethnic groups and peoples. I think however the biggest flaw in your discourse above is the assumption that the Basque country has never been an "independent entity". You must remember the fact that Basques have always inhabited the region of the Basque country, and before some of the earliest political and national entities in this area existed (including feudal kingdoms and the Roman provinces). Besides this, there have long been separate kingdoms and jurisdictions which governed over the Basque country, even if in most cases they were dependencies to Romans, Visigoths, Franks, Castile, etc. The Kingdom of Navarre and the Kingdom of Pamplona are examples of this and are a significant part of the unique political history of the Basque country. Iñigo Arista for example was an important Basque king and the very first king of Pamplona. Epf 11:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The issue about the Portuguese and the Spanish exists more in Portugal than in Spain. In any case it is a minority movement with such important figures as the Portuguese writer José Saramago. See also Iberic Federalism.

2. The Spanish and the Portuguese are much closer to be considered the same nation than most people think. Again, this is much a question of politics.

The language developed in Norhtern Spain, then spread into Northern Portugal later and it is an offical language in spain in the form of Galician.

Lusitania was a Roman province whose capital was in Emerita Augusta, present-day Mérida, Extremadura, Spain (By the way, the region around Lisbon is called the same, but with "s": Estremadura.In fact, Lusitania comprised a territory that was part of present-day Portugal and present-day Spain. The people of Extremadura, Spain, were all Lusitans. Viriathus, the famous Lusitan heroe who fought the Romans, is considered a National Heroe by both the Spanish and the Portuguese. Etc.

3. Many Basques consider themselves Spanish, many others do not. In any case, they have been Spanish since the Spanish state exists, that is, more that 500 years ago, and before that the present-day Spanish Basque country was part of the Kingdom of Castile, and before that of the Kingdom of Leon.

4. Navarra was an independent Kingdom in the Middle Ages. The Navarrese do no want any integration in the Basque country and have never contemplated talks about independence, except for a very small and radical minority.

5. The Basques are very important in relation to the origins of the Spanish and their language, and represent the only surviving pre-Roman "Spanish", "Iberian" or however we want to call it, language, as Spanish or even more than any other language of Spain: Spain has five official languages (if we consider Valencian apart¨"again an issue of politics") and many more languages that do not have an official status. Spain, like most European countries, is much richer and complex than many people seem to think.

6. The Iberians were just the broad name given to the most advanced peoples in Spain during the 1st millenium B.C. and who inhabited manly the Mediterranean area. They originated from the native inhabitants of the land, though their culture was strongly influenced by Phoenician and Greek colonization, but the people remained mainly Iberian, that is, natives.

HCC.

Epf listen: What is the definition of an ethnic group? Shouldnt we start from there?--Burgas00 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Burgas00 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Was incorrect please review this article for more details that say they found little link with the moors and Northern Africans. This is the article, which clearly states book and genetical studies done proves it: http://racialreality.sitesled.com/spaniards.htmlXGustaX

I have also found this source also: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/08/iberian-y-chromosomes.html [[XGustaX 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)]]

Gusta please revert your vandalism.

A number of users including myself have researched the content of the "racial reality" webpage while working on this article. We have discovered that it is politically motivated and one-sided in its approach. Furthermore, we have read the genetic studies quoted by the webpage, finding a number of misquotes and half truths. All the genetic studies quoted in the racial reality webpage are already included in the article. Blogs by unknown individuals with strange political agendas related to race are not serious sources to be used in wikipedia. I invite you to read past discussions on the talk page.

Thankyou. --Burgas00 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User XGustaX has been recently vandalising this article. Cutting its size in half, erasing dozens of sources etc..He is also trying to impose his peculiar ideas on this article. Could other wikipedians please revert the article to the last version before his edits? He seems to be quite persistent and has gone as far as reporting me for reverting his vandalism. Perhaps this page needs some protection once his vandalism has been reverted.

His IP address on the 25th of June is 24.60.161.63 and he is using it to break the 3RR.

Thankyou--Burgas00 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. I don't really know whats going on, but I've protected the article, having reverted to the longer version with the refs. I can see no reason why that was all removed. Please discuss here; please also make an effort to bring in others who might know better William M. Connolley 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing really to discuss William. Just a case of blatant vandalism... Thanks for protecting the page.--Burgas00 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley I have seen what has happened on this page. He keeps reverting XGustaX's edits even after XGustaX showed his facts and sources. Thanks. (17.255.240.86 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

-) Nice try XGustaX. Unfortunately you have been discovered by your inability to distinguish between the words Accuse and Excuse. See this by user XGustaX and this by his new impersonation: IP user:17.255.240.86.

XGustaX please take your vandalism and sockpuppets somewhere else. And learn to speak English while you are at it.--Burgas00 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey William, Well as you can see on this talk page and on our talk pages, that he is angry. He has called me all sorts of things including a Neo-Nazi. He has also excused other users of sockpupptery, something very serious by the way, just because they don't support him. All he seems to be capiable of doing is flaming. All I tried to do on the Spanish page was take out the information that is is in question any way by the articles up top that I posted. He has been doing this all morning and deleted my entire on the talk page twice already. I am glad you could step in becuase this insulting other users is getting old. He won't listen to the articles I posted before. Thank you I hope to hear from you soon. (XGustaX 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

I have not "excused" you of anything Gusta. I have proved you are using sockpuppets. Im quite proud of my discovery actually:-)--Burgas00 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You must be always be right then, by the "evidence" you have I would say not. So I guess you have proved that I am a Neo-Nazi as well? (XGustaX 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

User:XGustaX has a history of using sockpuppets such as User:24.60.161.63. He also removes vandalism warning from his user page and connected sockpuppets (example 1, example 2). He has now not only removed vital information om this article, but also removed comments by other users in the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, and accuses Burgas of deleting text from Gusta's page, what as you can see taking a look at the history that is not true. If such behaviour continues, the user might be facing a longer blocks that those he had already experienced.

Mariano you are mistake he has deleted THIS VERY TALK page and you can check the history he deleted my section and just completly dismissed my sources without even talking to him. You are very mistaken I never said he vandalize my talk page but this one. Now Why would I vandalize my own report to an admin about another user if I wanted to them to take them seriously. (XGustaX 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

You're right, sorry. Yet the other statements hold true. Again, let's try being constructuve here. Mariano(t/c) 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I shouldnt have done so and Im sorry, XGustaX. Then again you removed a couple of edits of mine on this talk page and on the administrator noticeboard. In any case, my mistake does not grant you the right to destroy the article.--Burgas00 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I took so long to respond I have been away on a business trip. Thank you. I appericate both of your apologize. You have a point,and i am sorry you cited some sources and they seemed correct. However, you totally ingored my sources and my input and insulted me in the process. Why should I take you as a serious editor if you are not willing comprise or listen to other, but rather insult people and call them Neo-Nazi? (XGustaX 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Well since we are all in a conciliatory mood there is no longer any need to protect the page, in my opinion.--Burgas00 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. (XGustaX 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Who wants this unprotected? William M. Connolley 07:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for unprotected pages in general. Mariano(t/c) 09:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe semiprotect? That way we will know the identity of those engaging in vandalism...--Burgas00 10:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, That's What I requested User:William M. Connolley semiprotection. *~Daniel~* 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But, It's too long for this page's protection because some of them wants to mention more informations, and perhaps there is some spelling mistake. That's the reason this page should not be protected anymore. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And also, I hope some admin could unprotect this article because vandalism of this article seems normal to me. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only this article, but most of the people´s articles present data that are absolutely outdated. Very low quality. User talk:210.84.44.188

What is outdated? Please specify!--Burgas00 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all this talk about the Spanish ancestry the genetic haplogroups which is the core to all this discussion is really annoying me. Why cant we all simply agree that the Spanish have north African genes as they were occupied for nearly 800 years – more like 600. Now when a country is overrun for that long it is hard to say that the occupants did not leave a gene legacy, I mean look at it this way, lets look at it in a modern eye, the African occupation of spain is equivalent as spain being occupied by Africans from the year 1500 to the present – year 2006. LOL all you people have to understand that the tests conducted are inaccurate, look at their samples, they are very small and don’t represent the majority of the population. But back to the Arabic occupation you have to be MAD to say that the Africans did not migrate into spain during the 800 years of occupation. It seems to me that the idea that Spaniards are very homogenous is absurd, I can draw on my on history for that, my parents came from spain – one from Galicia the other can trace their parents/grandparents from coming all over the peninsular – santander, Barcelona, Alicante, Madrid and iben or iden (where ever the hell it is in spain, perhaps a suburb in Madrid?) and me im from Australia. Lol I like this piece of information to show you all that yes Spaniards are no different to any other civilization out there and like to migrate, and Spaniards like it or not, have North African ancestry. You can deny this but really who are you trying to convince? oh also i wanted to add that do you think that dark skinned spaniard (olive skinned) and dark hair and eyes may be a legacy from the arabs? i mean the majority of spaniards including myself have these features... it could also be a mediteranean thing.. just a thought but other than that i would like to see the website unlocked so as we can change the outdated and invalid information posted there. User talk:210.84.44.188

Well for some reason, issues of ancestry and race seems to be very important on english wikipedia. Some users tend to have strong and divergent opinions on these issues. The current version of the ancestry section does not deny anything. It simply summarizes all the info available from genetic studies.It seems to me you havent read the section properly. Burgas00 13:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I don’t think I made myself clear. I think that the section downplays the role that the African occupation had on the Spanish genes. It seems to be biased and is painted in the light of picturing spain as a Aryan country. Now I know that the scientific research says otherwise but it just doesn’t fit the historical picture (also some reaserch contradicts others so which is right?). For the greater part of Spanish history, Spain has been occupied by Africans, from the Carthaginians, to the berber invasions in 711. It just doesn’t feel right that a country that has been occupied by Africans for nearly its entire history doesn’t have much African genes in it… it doesn’t make sense. i Guess i dont really have a problem with the layout but just the scientific research. sorry if i cause more heavy or tedious discussions. User talk:210.84.44.188

Scientific Research is the best way we have to describe and explain reality. You seem to have a problem with reality... The fact is, as far as we can tell today (from the genetic and historical evidence), that modern Iberian populations are basically what already they were in the Paleolithic and Neolithic. Of course other contributions followed since 10.000 years ago! And North Africans are amongst them. They are not the only one, mind you. Since the time of autochtonous Pre-Indo-European Iberians, Tartessians, Cynetes, Proto-Basques and similar, you've had Proto-Celts and Celts (such as the Lusitanians, the Gallaecians, the Cantabri, the Celtiberians, the Celtici and others - check this map of pre-Roman Iberia), semi-permanent commercial coastal establishments in the Mediterranean Sea by Greeks and the Phoenicians-Carthaginians, the Romans, the Germanic Visigoths, Suevi (Quadi and Marcomanni) and Vandals (Silingi and Hasdingi), the sarmatian Alans, the Moors (mainly Berbers with some Arabs), and a great deal of other Europeans (from other European nations, since the Reconquista to the present day). My friend, most of the Iberian Islamic population were native Peninsulars converted to Islam. And the Moors did not hold all of Iberia for 8 centuries! Do not let yourself be foolled by the Racialism crap about Southern Europeans that goes around in the English-speaking world... Of course Morrish input into Iberia, of every type (namely not only genetic, but cultural) must not be downgraded. I agree. And of course every modern Iberian is also a descendent of the Al-Andalus Moors, and, through them, all Europeans also are! For example, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is descendent of the Prophet Muhammad (and also George W. Bush, by the way...). The Ogre 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont know about the prophet mohamad and George Bush.... I think we should keep away from these stories. In any case the ancestry section is fine as it is. Every sentence in the section is NPOV and measured in a way that pretty much everyone agrees with it. It is the result of a very long process of discussion, mainly between Spaniards. (Please see past talks in archived discussions)--Burgas00 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, I didn’t realize how many people actually inhabited the Iberian peninsular. I agree then that it should not be changed but il just keep talking here coz I like to find out more but il vote to keep It as is. With your info I was amazed at all the facts you had posted, I had always thought that since the Berbers took over the peninsular the African world would of flocked to Iberia (I just got that impression from the books and websites I read, probably because Iberia was a cntre of culture and tolerance). Since I thought that, i couldn’t believe the scientific research you all were posting up here was correct – how the moors or berbers left little to the Iberians gene pool. But I have an open mind and I respect any theory (so long as it isn’t totally ridicules) I also seriously didn’t know how many celts and other civilizations inhabited Iberia, lol learn something new everyday, thanks, and cheers. User talk:210.84.44.188

There is more than enough genetic information about the Spanish to conclude that more than 80 per cent of them come from European paleolithic people (Haplogroups R1b, R1a and I) just like the rest of Europeans. That is a fact, the rest just Anglo etc, black legend crap. And the word Aryan means nothing and is stupid. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having North African origins, what is wrong is to try to steal and deform the identity of people, like a lot of morons have been trying to do historically since the Spanish Black legend originated out of the envy and jealousy of other Europeans when the Spanish discovered and conquered the world and created the Spanish empire much before the other European powers. If you can, just try and read the book "Tree of Hate, by Philip Wayne Powell" and you will know what I am talking about. 80.59.51.199

I personally don't understand how a people's ancestry can be used to denigrate them. In any case it is clear that what most controversy causes is the whole North African thing... Followed closely by whether Spaniards are homogenous geographically speaking. The former seems to be a major issue for non-Spaniards and the latter for Spaniards since it touches on modern-day separatism. Considering Spain's Islamic past, there is obviously some genetic relationship across the straights of Gibraltar, as there always has been. Lets not forget that the Tartessians were an Afro-Asiatic civilization and 711AD to 1492 is a very long time. Rather than speculate on issues of race or ancestry, which is quite futile in my opinion, it's much more interesting to study the impact of Al Andalus and the reconquest on Spanish culture and identity. Burgas00 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The genetic relationship with North Africa is not a minor issue. It has been used by Anglos and others to denigrate Spaniards, not because such a relationship is negative per se, which is not, but because they were so stupid as to think so. In other words, it has to do with the attempt to steal the European identity from other Europeans, especially from Southern Europeans, probably because they were jealous of the prominent role of Southern Europeans in European history. In any case, genetic research contradicts all those beliefs, and that is a fact and that is science. 80.59.51.199

Yes I agree. The Anglo Saxon world has traditionally found it difficult to swallow that the founders of modern day European civilisation- Greece and Rome- were Mediterranean. There are many bogus 19th century and 20th century theories on how the ancient Greeks were a "nordic" people unrelated to modern Greeks. In any case European identity is not based on genetics and Spaniards shouldnt worry about such issues relating to the Islamic legacy. Especially considering that Muslim Spain was responsible for the Renaissance period in Europe. Al Andalus was part of Europe and it is part of European history. Burgas00 13:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope i didnt give that impression that im worried about spanish ancestory because i origonally thought we did have it until now and i was quite happy to accept it, i really dont care, to me it all sounds neo nazi anyway, no offence :P User talk:210.84.44.188

It is not Neo-Nazi, it is a fact, both the stupid things about the Spanish going on in the Anglo Saxon World and the fact that the North African genetic influence in Spain was much smaller than it was believed. On the other hand, if some Europeans think that the Moors were or are inferior, they should know that it took just a handful of them to conquer the whole of Visigothic Spain: See Battle of Guadalete In fact, there were no mass migrations of Moors involved. The Moors in Spain were just a small elite that acted as worriers and noblemen who ruled over the natives, the Spanish, because their military power and culture was much superior at the time. They were the overlords then. They ruled over the Europeans, just a few of them. Their civilization was so superior that most Christians converted to Islam when they lived under the rule of this Moorish elite. In fact, if the Moors were so stupid as to be Neo-Nazis, they would use this part of history to speak about their superiority in relation to Europeans, but they are not, because usually, people with a long and sofisticated culture, though it may be now in a difficult situation, are not that stupid. But going back to the Spanish ideas in the Anglo Saxon world I am going to say just a couple o things:

1. I often visit the US, and I am fed up with answering the same question. I am quite an average looking Spaniard, and I often have to hear the question: Are you really Spanish? The people over there are so ignorant that they find it weird that I am Spanish because I am white.

2. Once, a nice American girl who was studying Spanish told me: "It is funny that I have a lot of friends that have visited Spain and they come surprised because the Spanish are white!.

What a big surprise! 80.59.51.199

Umm im olive skinned kinda tanned... i always thought thats how all spaniards look like, i have never been to spain so i dont know i always took it for granted that i look like the majority of spaniards... am i infact the minority? thats the problem of living way from a country u come from User talk:210.84.44.188

My friend, in the first place I do not know what you mean by olive skinned. If you think that olive skinned is the way many Mexicans look, for example, then the Spanish are certainly not olive skinned. 80.59.51.199

Well this is getting very silly. Lets not get into questions of who is white and who is not. For all I know moors themselves were white, you only have to look at Zinedine Zidane. I think we should keep our own personal issues away from wikipedia. As for your claim that Moors were only a ruling elite, this is actually not true. Although Tariq bin Ziyad crossed the straights with only 7000 men, subsequent colonisation from all over the muslim world continued over the following centuries. Within only a few years after 711 AD Spain's Arabic (not Muslim) had grown to over 50 000. Its pretty sad that we are using and deforming history to prove or disprove these racialist issues. In any case the phrase in the article on the issue: "Although a majority of genetic studies point to a genetic relationship between Northern Africa and (particularly southern) Iberia due to the centuries of Islamic invasion , this genetic influx should be considered to be relatively minor and not to have altered the basic ethnic makeup of the Spanish people." is enough. There is nothing more to discuss. Burgas00 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe there is nothing more to discuss for you. I find it interesting because we are dealing with this issue in an English speaking site, and some people seem to have an interest in this issue. I am not proposing any major changes, just refecting on some issues. 80.59.51.199

Im sorry if I offended you. I am not saying history should not be discussed. Its just that I feel there is too much of a racial undercurrent to these arguments. You only have to look at XGustaX's posts above (and subsequent vandalism). Genetics and ancestry issues are interesting but they become problematic when paired with inferiority (or superiority) complexes related to race. Spaniards, as all mediterranean peoples, are a people with diverse origins. The muslim period of their history has only enriched their heritage. I agree with continuing this discussion as long as it doesnt boil down to the question of how "white" Spanish people are. I would find that very sad.--Burgas00 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In the first place I find that the term white itself is a stupid one, full with a lot of stupid concepts, but it is out there. Anyway, there is out there a lot of information that should be the core of the article and it is not. Look at the Irish people page. It is the only page right now that is introducing the latest on ancestry research. Good, reliable ancestry research. For some reason I see a lot of resistance to introduce this in this page and in many others. 87.216.136.142

What do you mean? I mean the ancestry section is pretty well sourced. Perhaps too well sourced:-)--Burgas00 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh to let everyone know i didnt say this "Not only this article, but most of the people´s articles present data that are absolutely outdated. Very low quality" i dont know why my IP address says i have :S odd User talk:210.84.44.188

Well, it is my opinion, which seems to be shared by other people too. In any case, I want to leave this opinion here for the record (I have a Spanish keyboard and cannot find those tildes). 62.81.119.10

What tildes? I have a Spanish keyboard as well :-)... What exactly do you think is missing? I mean there are 18 up to date genetic studies... What more do you want? Burgas00 10:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, some people have said that the article is not balanced. I agree with them, that is all. If you think differently OK, but other people just do not think like you--- and I cannot find the damn tildes. 62.81.119.10

The tilde is under the question mark. Unless you mean the Spanish tilde which is on the same key as the ñ. In what way isnt it balanced? I cant discuss the issue with you unless you tell me what you dont like...--Burgas00 12:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Could possibly all these studies mean nothing because they only take a small sample of the generla population which is not a good representation of the general population of a region. Just i Mean taking 5 poeople to test from grenada or that region is not that reliable. User talk:210.84.44.188

Well... thats not the way Universities tend to proceed when publishing genetic studies on human populations. I assure you none of them are based on "5 people in Granada." I recommend you read this study (number 16 in quoted sources): http://www.upf.es/cexs/recerca/bioevo/2003BioEvo/BE2003-Plaza-AHG.pdf . You will be acquainted with the methodology of Genetic research. Is there any result in particular which bothers you or do you simply distrust academia as a whole?--Burgas00 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps both. Based on these results looks like most people are going to have to re-write history. i currently am only doing a BA in a University but i know that what ever a university results say it is not golden, it is and should be subject to criticism. But i have no evidence for my self to put forward so of course i vote to leave the page as is, there is no doupt about that im just simply questioning it as i expect anyone to do so as to make it more convincing. User talk:210.84.44.188

Ok well that is a very civilised way to behave.:-) I am just curious about what it is exactly that you think is incorrect... You are being very vague on the issue. You can always discuss things even without the intention of editing the article. That way other Wikipedians can bring their own sources to support your own arguments.--Burgas00 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish are members of the great Mediterranean race, the race that has produced the finest of civilizations: Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and a long etc. I have nothing against the British, the Irish, or anyone else, and I have absolutely no feeling of superiority towards anyone, but we, Spaniards, have a genuine, proud, non-racist feeling of identity as members of the Mediterranean race. All that research about R1b and haplogroups must be simply wrong or it is just jumping to conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.81.119.10 (talk • contribs)

Well this article is based on scientific research so we shall give it :) But back to my point, after reading all these archives im quit bored of discussing haplogroups and such. im more focused on history, the texts i read point out that Muslim Spain was a cultural centre with tolerance etc. etc So with that regard i dont know how much north Africans migrated to the Iberian peninsular but it sure gives the impression that there was huge migrations to the wealthy prosperous region of Al-Andulas. Now with these scientific research stipulating that there was little impression made on the gene pool its hard to believe that after reading the large amount of time the North Africans were in spain and the number of different Muslim dynasties that came to inhabit the land, these results dont fit to the historical accounts. Although i read somewhere here on wikipedia that the majority of Muslims where native Iberians and there were not very many North African people that ended up immigrating to the Muslim Spain (they were only ruling elites), it didnt sound right and was not referenced, as we all can see this is a free editing online encyclopedia which any idiot can type up any crap. So to me it sounds conflicting between history and scientific results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)

Arabs were the ruling elite albeit they were a much larger ruling elite than is sometimes stated. North Africans, however, colonized Iberia in much larger numbers and together they made up around 10% of the total population of Spain. Since within the first centuries of Islamic colonisation a majority of Spaniards converted to Islam, both Arabs and Berbers must have largely been genetically absorbed by the general population of the southern half of the peninsula. I have not looked at this part of the history section. If it does not reflect this, perhaps it should be changed. The ancestry sections states that North Africans did not make a large imprint on the Iberian gene pool. It does not deny that such imprint exists. As you can see from the genetic studies, there is a degree of genetic relationship between Spaniards and North Africans. Its just that normally when a people invades another, they do not generally replace the autoctnous population which tends to be much larger. Same goes for visigoths who left an even smaller imprint than the North Africans and are nevertheless considered (in the Spanish psyche) the founders of "Spain". For example,Morrocans who were originally an amazight people were largely arabized, however genetically, the proportion of their ancestry which is of Middle Eastern origin is surprisingly small. As for the Mediterranean "race", genetically it does not exist. Mediterraneans are a people who share certain cultural traits and have been in contact with each other for millenia thus having mixed and shared ties throughout history. Talking in terms of race is rather nonsensical when referring to this part of the world. R1b is a reality. It is a haplogroup originatingin northern Spain, which later expanded throughout Western Europe. It is the genetic legacy of pre-indo european peoples of Western Europe (a long time ago). Modern Spaniards nevertheless are the result of the mix of this pre-indoeuropean basis (protobasques) with later colonizers including (in Spain) Iberians, Tartessians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Punics, Celts, Romans, Visigoths, Alans, Suevi, Vandals, Arabs, Berbers, Slavs, Sudanese, Guanches, French, Dutch and Roma. What race does that make?;-) Burgas00 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you got any refrences to back up your claims? what source says 10%? - in relation to your first paragragh. If your source is reliable i would recomend you add it into the history section. The more information the better, but strictly it must be reliable and up to date.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)

Here is one... This is a difficult matter. We are going to get bogged down if we start looking for exact figures. http://www.celtiberia.net/articulo.asp?id=1627&cadena=Demografía--Burgas00 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

lol i cant understand Spanish but it looks like a forum, i dont think that would count as a reliable source though... so i dont think we will add anything to the history section for now :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)

Also im more into history but of course i like to know a bit of everything, which you seem to have a interest in biology as all this research is on that topic, i was wondering is there a dominant gene or something? what determines a person from having the r1b or the E3 something if they have mixed parents?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)

Im not sure but I think the Ychromosome means that the father of the father of the father....etc had that same haplotype. For MTdna it means that the mother of the mother of the mother etc.... From what i understand its not a question of dominant or recessive genes but of direct ascendence. i.e. if your mother and your grandmother had E3 (or whatever) it would not be transmitted to you. Im not a genecitist by the way but, from the studies i have read (diagonally) I have the impression that alot of conjecture and estimation is involved in these studies.--Burgas00 14:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What is with all this racism. Doesn't everyone understand most Western Europeans are a mix of Medditerrean, Nordic, and Celtic civilizations for most part anyway. Spain is NO different. Guys lets not try to be racist, Culture and language are different the ancestry. We are all the same and we should treat everyone the same. I really don't like all this racism. (71.232.231.151 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

Give it a break, XGustaX, the only racist in this conversation is you. Im tired of your sockpuppets, vandalism and silly comments... You have already managed to get the article protected, please go away. --Burgas00 21:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone! If you want to understand Population genetics, Haplogroups and stuff, you should check the excellent site of the The Genographic Project here. More important for this discussion are the pages (in the same site) that explain genetic signposts, population genetics and the interactive & chronological atlas of human migrations where you can click in Iberia and see further explainations about Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) (its female counterpart is Haplogroup H (mtDNA), by the way). The Ogre 15:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

lol User:71.232.231.15, this is not a racist conversation, this is curiosity, I assure you that there is no racist undertone in this discussion. It’s sad that people start labeling others racist when all they simply want to do is find out more (History might I add), would you prefer I remain ignorant instead? Or would you prefer I state “im not racist, nor do I have any racist undertone to my questions” after every question I ask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)

It seems to me some people here are Objective. All Europeans are pretty much a mix of Celtic Medditerrean and Nordic. Spain is in NO way different. This article does not state that.(71.232.231.151 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

I am the one who started this part. Some people speak here of racism. I have no racist feelings at all towards anyone. The situation is that all this genetic research is in contradiction with what most Spaniards thought. We have our sense of identity, and I am not going to say that all this is like a crisis to it, that would be stupid, but I am rather confused at the moment. I had never heard of Haplogroups up to now, and I am no authority to question all that, but you must recognize that all that stuff looks pretty weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.18.162 (talk • contribs)

I have been reading the links introduced by The Ogre. OK, I look at the Haplogroup map and what shall I make of it, that for example, most Britons and Spaniards belong to the same genetic lineage, while most Greeks and Spaniards would not. Excuse me, but this is the part that I find pretty difficult to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.18.162 (talk • contribs)

I think I can answer your question. I had no idea of genetics until I came across this article and attempted to help sort out the unsolvable arguments and revert wars on this talk page. Me and a number of other users thus decided to post all the reliable Genetic Studies on the issue on the article. It is clear that none of us arguing are geneticists or microbiologists and we all have a limited understanding of the issue. I therefore decided to read these (very boring) genetic studies and try to grasp their meaning. It is surprising, as you say, that R1b is so prevalent among Spaniards and Britons especially considering that physically they are so different. The average Spaniard looks much more like a Greek than an Englishman or a Scotsman. What I have come to understand is that the issue of Haplotypes is not as straightforward as it seems on those maps. It does not mean that a majority of Spaniards have the same origins as a majority of Brits. For example, regarding the issue of North African ancestry, the U6A haplotype is prevalent in 1.3% of Spaniards and from this result the studies calculate that the Genetic imput from North Africa is of 15% of the total gene pool (Im making the figures up). How do they come to this conclusion? I dont know Im not an expert on the issue. Furthermore, population movements can only be extrapolated from these genetic markers in conjunction with a number of other markers (there are many of them). It seems that the issue of ancestry is rather complicated, and the results of no study seems to be conclusive in anyway. We must not see the Hapmaps or any other study as offering any definite answer to who is related to who and to what degree but rather come to (vague) conclusions ourselves from the totality of genetic studies available. Our knowledge of history and prehistory can also be used in conjunction with these studies in order to come to reasonably accurate conclusions. Burgas00 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, not because I am an expert on these issues, but because it is too weird. does anyone here know whether these hapmaps and all this information of National Geographic etc, is really accepted as valid in the scientific community? If a geneticist or biologist would be around they could be of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.18.162 (talk • contribs)

The problem here is that there are people who seem to know a lot about history, but very little about genetics and anthropology. The male Y-Chromosome is passed from father to son all the way down. People who have the same type of Y-Chromosome have the same male ancestors, there is no doubt about it and no one who knows about the issue even questions it. As to the differences among Spaniards, Greeks, the British, etc, they cannot be very large in any case because they are all Europeans and fall within the European genetic diversity and Europid physical features. That does not mean that they are all the same, but they are very similar in comparison to other population groups or races, however we want to call it. Spaniards, Italians, Greeks can be grouped together because of superficial features, but when we scratch the surface interesting differences begin to surface:

1. One important feature that anthropologists used to take into account is craniofacial features, because they remain the same for thousands and thousands of years amidst populations. So, what do we have here:

a. We have two interesting cases: one is called Dolichocephaly (long heads) and another Brachicephaly(round heads). Well, it happens that Dolichocephaly occurs very often along the Atlantic coast of Europe, including obviously Spain and Britain, while Brachicephaly occurs often in Central Europe and the Balkans, including Greece.

Craniometry is not taken very seriously nowadays, but in any case it is interesting the coincidence in this case. Still, while craniometry or other physical measurements are not taken very seiourly nowadays to track people´s ancestry, genetics is taken very seriously, and some people here seem to be trying to downplay it, probably as a result of ignorance, because I guess that they do not have some kind of strange agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.81.119.10 (talk • contribs)

can you refrence that from any where, and dont say that Coon person from those racial reality websites coz his information is very racist. i think that if coon was in Germany at the time of World War Two i think he would of become Hitlers right hand man, hell he would of proformed a coup de etat and taken hitlers spot. i Just get that impression his information is very biased and incorrect for his own agenda, but anyways this 'Spanish People' article seems to have accepted that the information up there is valid so problems solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.44.188 (talk • contribs)

No it hasnt. None of this biometrics stuff is quoted on the article. And the article is very realistic in its statements. It says Spaniards are overall a mediterranean people, although there is a degree of hererogeny among them, especially regarding Catalans, Basques, Galicians, Andalusians and Canarians. It says there is a degree of North African imput into the Iberian gene pool (particularly in the south) and it says there is a degree of genetic relationship between Northern Spaniards and the Atlantic façade of Europe. It is also mentioned that a common prehistoric substratum of people, carriers of R1b, expanded from Northern Spain throughout Western Europe. This does not mean that modern populations of western Europe are identical. Subsequent population movements since the arrival of IndoEuropean peoples (a very long time ago) to the present day has made modern Spaniards very different from modern British or French, even though part of their ancestry is shared and originates in these prehistoric people from Northern Iberia, which we can only assume to be proto basques. All of this is supported by genetic studies. Does anyone disagree with any of the statements of the article? I shouldnt think so.--Burgas00 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

can we just leave it? im at the point where i simply just dont care, you can type up anything and i wouldnt care.

i was also wondering is there anyone here that might know some external links of Cavalli-Sforza research? particularly on the iberian people?

---

I have already stated that craniometry is a pice of crap, but genetics is not. This is an article about Spanish people, therefore it also mentions ancestry. If it mentiones ancestry it should start from the most important thing: That about 80 per cent of Spaniards (precisely the european average)can trace their ancestry to the Paleolithic populations of Europe (Haplogroups R1b, R1a and I) and then continue and go gon with the smaller influences. This is a fact that is not questioned by any serious genetic research. Now, if some people here think that speaking of scientific facts is racist for some reason, then maybe we should erase all these peopleś articles, but if we want to speak about them, we should be more rigorous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.137.167 (talk • contribs)

---

I agree although it is more like 68% rather than 80% (y chromosomes) and less than 50% Mtdna. Plus having Mtdna Haplogroup H, for example, does not immediately imply origin in paleolithic Iberia since this haplogroup is common throughout Europe, the Mediterranean and Middle East. The problem here seems also that people (including the above editor) make wrongful conclusions from genetic studies. Haplogroups are by no means conclusive evidence regarding ancestry, they are more like general indicators which can be used together with other genetic markers. By the way can people please sign their comments, even if they are not registered? --Burgas00 12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Burgass, you are the one who makes wrongful conclusions all the time which seem difficult to understand, because I think that you are a intelligent guy:

1. 68% per cent is the approximate value for R1b for the whole of Spain. You must add the percentages of Haplougroup R1a and especially Haplogroup I. Those three Haplogroups are Paleolithic European Haplogroups.

2. Haplogroups are more than conclusive evidence regarding the ancestry of polulations. For individuals things can be more complicated, but when an entire group is taken into account there are no doubts about it.

3. Also in relation to your comments about how Spaniards have changed over time, I should remind you that all these genetic studies do not refer to how people were in the Paleolithic; they show how people are now, in the 21st century. The theories about the Paleolithic are widely accepted as an explanation, but do not confuse the theory: that these populations come form the Paleolithic, with the fact, that present day Spaniards and Europeans share these or those Haologroups.

---

Yes I agree. But those 3 haplogroups are present and common in the whole of Europe and Mediterranean basin. So what do they tell us about population movements in the last 3000 years? Not much (by themselves). Although it does naturally point to a basic paleolithic ancestry Do you see where I am getting at? --Burgas00 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

NO, I do not know what you are getting at. In any case, those Haplogroups and the others tell us how the Spanish are from a genetic point of view and from a scientific point of view right now. All the conclusions that we can draw from there is only speculation, some more resonable than others, but still, we cannot negate the main facts. Then I sould also point out that this is not an article about history. There is the History of Spain article for those interested.

---

Well lets give it a break for now... At least until the page is unprotected. Im sure that our positions are not so distant as it seems. Have a look at the Gibraltar article if you are up for a fight;-)--Burgas00 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is said that there are 321,000 Spaniards in France (figures from 1987). 1.5 million people have Spanish background in France. L'Express.fr Someone should correct that.

Ok will do that as soon as page is unprotected.

Hello, just wanted to contribute to the article by posting another source for the ancestory section. Im not sure if it is already refrenced but i dont think it is so il post it here and allow you all to determineif you should add it.

http://www.upf.edu/cexs/recerca/bioevo/2000BioEvo/BE2000-Bosch-STRs-EJHG.pdf

Thats a great source that further emphasizes the genetic make up of Iberians and Africans. It shows that there is a large diffrence between the two civilizations. Allthough largely concerned with the North Africans as you can tell by the title, it does draw on comparisons of the Africans to the Iberians so i would say it is a credible source to use for the spaniards page.

Yes and one more here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16201138&dopt=Abstract

---

Those sources do not say anything new. It has already been discussed. Here you have a global view of the Spanish genetic make up:

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF

As you can see the genetic marker E3b, which is typical of North Africa and of the Berbers (you can see it in the pie for North Africa), represents about 10% of the Spanish population. This genetic marker comes from the Neolithic invasions and from the Muslim invasion in Spain. So, there is no doubt about the relationship between Spain and North Africa and I think no one is questioning that here. Still, see how this marker is also present all across Europe, probably from Neolithic invasions, and with higher occurences in other European countries.

On the other hand, right now, the typical haplogroup for Spain is R1b and more than 80% per cent of Spaniards belong to Paleolithic European haplogoups (haplogroups R1b, R1a and I), which happens to be as well the European average, while less than 20% come from Neolithic and more recent invasions.

It has already been said, but a Y-Chromosome Haplogroupg is a genetic marker that is passed down from father to son all the way down and is the best way available at the moment in genetics to know about the ancestry of population groups.

---

Yes but we must not forget Mtdna as well, which is transmitted mother to daughter and is equally important.

Can we have some source which provides exact percentages for different haplogroups (both Mtdna and Y-chromosomes) in Iberia and the rest of Europe? Also these pies do not really give any reference to the size, location of the population sample... I think one is needed.

I know that R1b is most common among the Basques. This corresponds with historical reality since R1b is of paleolithic pre-indoeuropean origin and so is the basque language. It is believed that at one point, the entire population of western europe spoke a proto basque language. --Burgas00 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16201138&dopt=Abstract

it says "The most relevant results are the following: (1) North African sequences (haplogroup U6) present an overall frequency of 2.39%, and sub-Saharan sequences reach 3.83%, values that are, in both cases, much higher than those generally observed in Europe;"

is that 2.39% and 3.83% of the whole population, coz that is practically nothing if so

further more could someone please tell me some links for Greek genetics, thanks much appreciated if someone could find me that particularly on the ncvi website journals thingy.

Look at source 16 on the article. It says the following:

Haplogroup U6 is present at frequencies ranging from 0 to 7% in the various Iberian populations, with an average of 1.8%. Given that the frequency of U6 in NW Africa is 10%, the mtDNA contribution of NW Africa to Iberia can be estimated at 18%, with a 95% confidence interval of 8%-26%. --Burgas00 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

There seems to be some Subsaharan influence all over Europe, probably due to the slave trade. Here you have this interesting article about this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe

For example Haplogroup E(xE3b) is more frequent in countries like Germany and France. Genetic research is obviously showing all these interesting connections. What is a bit suspicious is that people come all to the Spanish people´s page and not to the other people´s articles with these issues of out of Europe connections, especially when this new genetic research is discovering things that are much more substantial and interesting like the spread of Haplogroup R1a, which is very common in Central, Eastern and Norhtern populations, and we are speaking of percentages sometimes close or over 50%. Well, this haplogroup is also present by a 50% in Asian, non Caucasian popularions like the Altaians and also is close to 50% among Pakistanis and Indians. Well, I do not see any interest in pointing all these things out in the other people´s pages, which seems a little surprising. For the spread of R1a or also very interesting Haplogroup N, see it here, which is already in this page:http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

So, I am sorry but there is something fishy going on here. Just look at all the other´s peoples articles, especially about Norhtern or Central Europe, no reference whatsoever to these facts and connections with non European populations, facts that are more relevant because of their numbers than the figures that we are discussing here.

Its nothing fishy. The thing is that this issue has been the subject of discussion and revert wars and people have strong opinions on the subject. Considering Spain's history, I guess people are disposed to have preconcieved ideas. By the way, the more of these genetic studies I read the more I am convinced that they are very unreliable, considering the way in which they contradict each other. It is clear that population genetics is a science which is still in its infancy. Who knows, it may never grow to tell us all we expect it to do. --Burgas00 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not agree. There are more than enough global studies to come to conclusions. What is a mistake is for people here to try and read and article here and there and try and do the work that professionals have already done. Only global results about any people studied from a genetic point of view are valid. Partial studies will always lead to unreliable conclusions in the hands of amateurs. Right now, one of the best sources to place populations genetically and globally is the 2005 Mcdonald Hapmap, which is above. It contains both the global Y-Chromosome Haplogroups for Spain and the global MTDNA haplogroups for Iberia (Page 5). This Hapmap is not the only one, so I encourage anyone to produce more global studies, but stop using individual studies to come to global conclusions. There are scores of them and taken individually they are subject to a lot of speculation. Still, I stick to my point. I see a lot of interest in this article about pointing out non European genetic relationships in the Spanish, and very little or none at all in the other people´s articles, and I do not have to repeat how big they are in most other European countries.

---

You still havent explained which phrase or sentence exactly you dislike in the ancestry section.

---

There is something called perspective and context. Both are a mess if you compare them with the other people´s articles and the global facts available.

the title of this pretty much explains it all. I was wondering how many immigrants are in spain (legal and illegal).

There are slightly less than 4 million legal immigrants and the total number is probably around 4 and a half million.

The Spanish are one of the most characteristically European nations in Europe, this is one interesting conclusion of new genetic anthropology:

1. It is easy to see and understand:

a. 68% of Spaniards are Haplogroup r1b (in some areas almost 90%) and 12% Haplogroup I (Y-DNA), which equals 80%.

2. What is so interesting about these two genetic families:

a. They occur overwhelmingly and almost exclusively in Europe.

b. Haplogroup R1a is also very frequent accross Europe, but it is even more frequent in Asia, with about 500 million Indians belonging to this genetic family.

As has already been said, see it on pages 1 and 2. For female genetic markers you can see page 5.

Of course you need to be able to read a map: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Very few European nations can claim to be as characteristically or exclusively European as the Spanish, from a genetic point of view. Now, does the article reflect this fact?. Of course not. The article right now is of extremely poor quality because it is clearly ignoring the main and most important facts, while for some reason tries to deal with minority non-European genetic relationships , while the other European people´s articles show no interest in this fact and they happen to have many more genetic relationships with non-European peoples than the Spanish.

And I would like to say someting else:

I see a lot of people argueing about the reasons for genetic relationships:

1. Genetics does not say why things are like that, but it says what things are like.

a. It does not say why most Eastern Europeans and many Northern Eurpeans belong to the same genetic family R1a as most Indians or Pakistanis, but it certainly says that they do.

b. It does not say why most Spaniards and Western Eurpeans belong to the same genetic family R1b, but it certainly says that they do.

So, the article is very far from being using the global genetic information avalilable nowadays in an honest or scholarly way.

In short, we need an entire different version for this article.

So, I propose a new version for this article, especially in relation to the genetic section. PP.----------------

I disagree. Although I agree with you that the R1b should be mentioned at beginning of the section rahther than the end. However, the article clearly explains that Iberians are a European Mediterranean people. It briefly goes into the question of whether the 700 years of islamic history affected the gene pool of modern Spaniards. Genetic studies conclude that it did, but not drastically, as can be clearly demonstrated by a wide range of genetic markers shared with north africans but not with any other european population- at least to that degree. It also briefly goes into the other question of whether Iberians are genetically homogenous. Results show that there is a limited geographic heterogeny.

I assume you know something about population genetics. You therefore must understand that Haplogroups are simply genetic markers for past population movements which occured in some cases 10s of thousands of years ago. They do not denote a "European" or "Middle Eastern" or "Berber" primeval "race" or even genetic family. The example you have given of R1a is a good example of that. A shared haplogrooup by itself is simply a clue on what can be a very ancient prehistoric population movements which tells us very little on the genetic make up of a present day individual. Germans are not 40% genetically Pakistani because of a shared R1a haplogroup. It does not work that way.

An analysis is not needed of haplogroups and their origins for each "people" article so as to trace the many possible routes which each of their ancestors have followed from Africa.

I do agree that the section could be more succint. --83.175.232.170 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

---

No my friend. I do not agree with basic points. You speak of haplogroups, or genetic families, as if they were a thing of the past. No, indeed they are genetic markers that are present in 21st century populations, so do not confuse the fact with the theories about their possible origins. And I do know a lot of genetics: A person has 46 Chromosomes, 2 of them are very interesting because they determine sex and are passed down directly from father or mother to son and they do not change (especially the Y-Chromosome)and when entire populations are involved it is the best way at the moment to relate people genetically and therefore in terms of big families. Indeed, about 25% of Germans (not 40% my friend) belong to the same Y-Haplogroup genetic family as about 40% of Indians, which means that they had the same male parents. That is a scientific fact that no serious authority in genetics even questions. So, if you question all that for some reason, do not come here with your personal opinions. Self research and personal opinions are against Wiki rules. If you have a genetic global picture of the Germans, the Spanish, the Indians or of any other group that contradicts these findings, bring it foward, otherwise, do not waste our time.

---

Thank for this aggressive and highly emotional response. I see the ancestry of Spaniards seems to be a very important issue for you. You claim to "know a lot of genetics" but you clearly do not understand my point. In most cases, the split between populations which shared haplogroups such as U6, E3b or R1a occurred so far in the past that it cannot be claimed that modern populations who share them belong to the same genetic family. I illustrate: Pasiegos (a population in a remote area of northern Spain share the dominant haplogroup E3b with berbers). This is mostly due to a common ancestor from the paleolithic or neolithic and does NOT mean that they are in the same "family" as Algerians. Same goes for Samis of Northern Scandinavia who share the haplogroup U6 with Berber tribes of the Rif of Morocco. The same people? Surely not. A common ancestor (among many others) tens of thousands of years ago? Most definitely.

---

My friend, for some reason you are one of those who tries to downplay all new genetic research, especially when it does not suit them. These genetic markers are present in today´s populations. Genetics does not care why it is like that, that is a question for historians, who are rewriting history all the time. The fact that Julius Caesar was not there to write down when these migrations happened is of no concern for Genetics. History, recorded history, is extremely limited, just an extremenly thin crust on a very thick pie. In short, Haplogroups are lineages, they link people together right now, in the 21st century, because they have exactly the same Y-chromosome genetic markers (in the case of males). Whether this comes from 3, 4 or 10 thousand years ago (a blink of a eye, by the way, in terms of human evolution)is irrelevant, because during all that time, however long it is, no new mutations have occured for these populations to be classified in new groups. They are classified together because they are sufficiently closely related for these genetic markers to be exactly the same right now.

As to the terminology employed, you can call it Lineages (like National Geographic, among others, does), Genetic Families or even Genetic Races, like you can see in the following link, page 2:

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

So, again, a lot of Germans and a lot of Indians belong to the same Y-Haplogroup Genetic Race (just to continue with the same example) and it is not me who has invented this terminology. Pinball.

---

But going back to the main question again, I think we could propose a new version, especially in relation to the genetic section, that follows the same criteria used in the other people´s articles and that points out the interesting facts about the Spanish that are downplayed here, devoting more space to the unique case of R1b, its Spanish origins and European expansion and the facts that I have already pointed out, placing the Spanish genetically as a Western European, Atlantic population, because genetically they are not a characteristically Mediterranean population. In short, be more rigorous with the scientific data available.

Pinball.

---

Pinball, you still havent answered my questions:

Do you consider that Pasiegos in northern Spain are a North African population because they share haplogroup E3b?

What other genetic markers do they share with Moroccans or Algerians? Ill give you the answer: not many. According to your (mis)understanding of genetics, they should not be classed as a European population at all.

Do you not know that population genecitists (such as Cavalli Sforza) use dozens of genetic markers to cluster population groups???

It is silly to deny Mediterranean ancestry of Iberians on the basis of a strong presence of y-chromosome R1b. I have the impression that racial politics (the ugly yet inevitable side to population genetics) are seeping into this talk page.

In any case you should read some of the links to the global genetic studies of Iberian populations present on the article.

--83.175.232.170 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not agree with you. Of course those people have an important connection with North Africans, and about the 10% of Spaniards that share their Haplogroup with Berbers. That is how genetics works. What do you say about the use of genetics?. Many Spaniards and, especially, some Mediterranean Supremacists think that they are members of a great Mediterranean Race, reponsible for all civilizations. You did not know that? Then you know little of the Spanish. What Mediterranean race? I do not want to go into stupid discussions. The most important and reliable genetic marker to place ancestry is the Y-Chromosome. If you want to continue dowplaying it I do not want waste my time with you. I think you need some basic education in genetics. You are so ignorant that you advise me to read information that is mostly based either in the Y-Cromosome or the Mitocondrial DNA., and right so, because they are the only reliable ways to trace ancestry, but you still miss the main point: They all concentrate on some minority Haplogroups. That is the clear bias in the article. In fact you can elaborate on the minority Haplogroups ad infinitum, if you want, and still ignore or downplay the most important ones. And if you did the same with any other European people´s article, your ass would be kicked out of the page. So, do not confuse the basic mechanisms of logics. Of course there is an important Mediterranean influence in the Spanish, but genetically and in terms of ancestry they have to be placed predominantly in the Atlantic Facade of Europe. Can you provide a global source, not individual studies that concentrate on one aspect here or one aspect there?. If you can provide a global source about the genetic origins of the Spanish, indicating clearly all influences, minor and major, then do it. Otherwise go with your speculations and manipulation some place else. Pinball.

---

Ok Pinball enough. The section starts with the following sentence:

Spaniards are a European and predominantly Mediterranean people originating in South-Western Europe. Genetically, they are similar to other Southern and Western European populations such as the Portuguese, Italians and French.

Spaniards are described as 1. European. 2. Mediterranean. 3. Similar to inhabitants of neighbouring countries such as France, Portugal or Italy. Denying these basic points would be laughable.

The article is not biased or manipulating anything. Im seriously proposing scrapping the ancestry section altogether if this continues. If its the connexion to North Africans that bothers you just say so. You would not be the first Spanish wikipedian who has flipped out over it.

I think there are many more interesting and important sections of the article which are in a pitiable state and need much more work than the ancestry section.

---

--Burgas00 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I dont want to continue this argument. I guess Burgas is right. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. User Pinball has a point, although I would like to elaborate. Europe was first colonized around 40 000 years ago, during the Paleolithic. These first Europeans were the carriers of Y-chromosome R1b which is common in western Europe. The second wave of colonisation occured during the neolithic 10 000 years ago entering Europe through Anatolia and the Steppes of western Asia. These colonists, who came through the East (including the proto-indoeuropeans) brought in a number of haplogroups which were absent in the continent during the paleolithic. This explains the greater diversity as one travels East in the continent and Iberia was much less affected by neolithic migrations than much of the rest of the continent, explaining the strength of the paleolithic component of their gene pool to this day. Iberia (as is the rest of the Atlantic façade of Europe) is more "paleolithic" rather than more "European". Since descendants of neolithic peoples and carriers of indoeuropean genetic markers (such as R1a which is very common in northern and north eastern Europe) are as European as the paleolithic descended people, it is pointless to distinguish between the two in order to measure "Europeanness".

On the other hand, the Iberian gene pool was more affected by post-neolithic and modern population migrations, particularly from North West Africa, than most of the rest of Europe. There is strong evidence in support of transmediterranean population movements towards Iberia both modern and ancient and that this exchange was more intense than in most of the rest of the northern shore of the Mediterranean.

To conclude: Iberians missed a step in the genetic "metissage" of Europe which occurred during the neolithic but caught up from that period to the present day.

Hope these reflexions have helped you guys out with your discussions!

Enjoy your weekend.

Jose