Talk:Spanish people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish people article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

	Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Sept. 2004 / Mar. 2006 - Apr. 2006 / Aug. 2006 - Sept. 2006 / Jul. 2007

Contents 1 Rearranging the ancestry section 2 Map 3 The Atlantic connection in ancestry section 4 Ignatius Loyola 5 Pejorative ? 6 pictures top 7 JOaquin Cortes 8 94% of Spaniards with Catholic Religion is not accurate 9 Castilian Spanish? 10 About current immigration text on 'Other Historical influences' section 11 Latin people? 12 Ramon y Cajal 13 Incorrect link? 14 Candidate for Speedy Delete 15 Burgas and Asterion: stop pushing your agenda 16 Nationalities 17 140 milion of Spanish people ? 18 ancestry section 19 Northern and southern spanish "dialects"??? 20 Hispanics in the United States - requested move 21 About the bias template in the article 22 On the question of northern and southern dialects... 23 Legacy of Muslim Rule 24 Vandalism 25 Vandalism 26 A LOT OF MISTAKES.. 27 Asking for Semi-protection 27.1 Semi-protected 27.2 Question 28 There's a reference that has a mis-spelling "acoording" 29 The image is not valid 30 I denouce user Burgas 31 Vandals

[edit] Rearranging the ancestry section

I dont want to get involved in the low level edit war over the substantial content of the ancestry section, but I have rearranged it considerably, in a way that the general article on the Genetic History of Europe should be done as well. The section was complete mumbojumbo and I have tried to improve it by:

• Offering a coherent assessment of the different sources provided, starting with the more recent high resolution studies and then moving to more broad brush (and less revealing) studies such as Y-chromosome and MtDNA analysis.
• Removing references to works of Peter Sykes et al. These are books which are for the general public as opposed to for the scientific community, do not offer any original research regarding population genetics and have been widely critized for drawing conclusions from meagre and now out-of-date data. Furthermore, they are not directly relevant to the subject matter.
• Expanding on the section on the demic diffusion and the origins of the theory. I also point out that the whole Neolithic/paleolithic division is not as clear cut as was previosly implied.
• I have tried to remove the "yes but in another study it says that..." structure of the section.
• I have cut down the bit on prehistoric movements from North Africa, not really that important and one of the two sources was out of dat (1997 I think)
• I have added a final line as a disclaimer explaining that population genetics is not a certain science blabla...

I have done my best to improve this section in good faith. I see it has been the object of much controversy, which, as generally happens has reduced the whole thing to gibberish. My edits are bold but in good faith. Could we discuss them here before reverting them as vandalism?

By the way, I have slightly disrupted the reference system, Im still not quite sure how it works...

Thanks. --62.136.31.118 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT AGREE. PREVIOUS ANCESTRY SECTION MUCH BETTER. THIS ONE DELETES A LOT OF SOURCES. PLEASE SOMEONE REINTRODUCED PREVIOUS VERSION. ____

I agree. Some people here do show a keen interest in deleting the Atlantic connection. Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer are world experts in using genetics for anthropology studies. Some people here continue erasing them. Why? Who knows. Maybe this version could be left the way it is, but a part dealing with the atlantic connection should be left. Absolutely no reason to ignore it. ____

Im sorry for aggravating you. The "atlantic connection" is very well explained in the main body of the section. Why are you repeating it in a section by itself. Sykes and Oppenheimer are amateur geneticists. There is no need to mention their popular science books, which are not very good, by the way. I don't think this supports this or that position. Its just a question of quality of sources! K --62.136.31.118 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"A more orthodox analysis would be used to class these groups as Spanish, based on common language, culture and a sense of shared ancestry"

In my opinion, this is not correct. Wikipedia is using the American definition of Spanish. A more European definition states that Spanish are people of Spain, and therefore Europeans. The same way you can not define US citizens or Australians as English people just because they share the same language. So we must differentiate between people who share a language from people ethnically and culturally linked. So Spanish and Latinos are no the same meaning.

Spanish are people from Spain. Even the word Latin-American or Latino is confusing as any person who uses a Latin origin language (in the Americas: French, Portughese and Spanish) could be defined as Latino, a common definition define them as Spanish speaking people living in the Americas. That do never mean that Latino or a Spanish person is somehow discriminatory, by no means.

Also, to share a language does not mean to share a culture. Spanish culture is different inside Spain and can not be considered as being unique. For example, Catalan culture is more related to South France (Languedoc) than to Andalusia in South Spain, while Latin American culture even not unique, keeps the best of a mix of Spanish/Portughese, true Americans and slaves culture.

Finally, shared ascentry it is true as Spanish conquerors, fortunately where to few to replace the existing population of aborigins in the Americas, "the true Americans", so they mixed with that population. This is the big difference with the US creation as a nation, where almost all "true Americans" where killled because the invasion of European settlers (including Spanish, English, French, Germans, Belgians, Irish, etc, etc...).

I am not stating that the Spanish conquerors where good people. All Europeans invaded the Americas with the same thirst of gold and land, but in some areas of the Americas, real Americans where considered Indians and genocide, while in other areas Europeans where too few to kill them all, and where made slaves also with African origin slaves.

This is shame on European history, but Europe was a turbulent continent just 400 years ago and had to wait until the French and American revolutions to start to see the light of democracy and human rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.93.169.148 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The language map shows Spanish been spoken in Morocco unofficially. The majority of moroccans do not have a strong grasp of French, let alone Spanish. The map should be modified so that only the Rif region of the country is colored, the only part where Spanish has any presence. Even in Western Sahara the use of Spanish is marginal if not inexistant. --Burgas00 12:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That and other objections (regardind Brazil and the Philipines, for instance) have been voiced at the map's talk page in Wikipedia and its talk page at the Commons. But user User:Onofre Bouvila (now blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia; but still active at The Commons) continues to push his Spanish-centered POV. He claims (the source is doubtfull) that:

1. Morocco must be included because there are 360,706 non-native speakers of Spanish out of 33,241,259 inhabitants.
2. Western Sahara: 37,132 speakers of Spanish out of 341,000.
3. Aruba: 110,000 speakers of Spanish out of 103,484 (!!!!!!).
4. Belize: 130,000 speakers of Spanish out of 297,651 (this one may be true...?).
5. Trinidad and Tobago: 4,100 speakers of Spanish out of 1,305,000.
6. Netherlands Antilles (Bonaire, Curaçao, Sint Eustatius, Saba, Sint Maarten): 10,699 speakers of Spanish ot of 183,000.
7. Brazil: Spanish and Portuñol speakers in the border regions (no data given!!!!).
8. Falklands Islands: No speakers but arguing that "the islands have had Hispanic population in the past..." (!!!!!!).
9. Guam: 30,708 speak Chamorro (an Austronesian language!!!) out of 170,000.
10. Northern Mariana Islands: 14,205 speakers of Chamorro (an Austronesian language!!!) out of 80,801.
11. Philippines: arguing that "some sources point that Spanish is estimated to have around 1,816,389 speakers in the Philippines, while others estimate this number to be as high as 3,108,000 (...) Chavacano is also present, with 607,000 speakers" for a total population of 88,706,3002.

I believe these number for non-native speakers, when they even exist (!), are just a fantasy, Onofre Bouvila is including people who supposedly learned Spanish at school (why not include Germany, I suppose there are many people in Germany who can speak Spanish!), is including languages , such as Chamorro and Portunhol that are not Spanish derivates or that are inbetween others languages (should we count the speakers of Portunhol as Portuguese speakers?), and is making claims of "cultural" (political?!?) sovereignty to territories that have no Spanish speaking presence. This map is completely POV! It must be corrected urgently! The Ogre 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this discussion to the map's talk pages. The Ogre 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes well this does look a bit like POV pushing, although I give credit to the reference to Belize. Due to immigration from neighbouring countries Spanish is very strong there and I wouldnt be surprised if it eventually became the de facto language of the country.--Burgas00 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Im also surprised at the low figure for Spaniards in Germany (compared to that of France) could someone back that up with a source?--Burgas00 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe i can help. The majority of moroccans do not have a strong grasp of French, let alone Spanish. Well, Burgas is totally right. I am a Moroccan from Tetouan (Tetuán?) where Spanish is supposedly spoken unofficially. False, i'd say maybe 25% undestand Spanish. Maybe 10% may respond in Spanish. Maybe 5% would communicate in fluent Spanish. That was about Tetuán.

360,706 non-native speakers of Spanish in Morocco is a bit exaggerated The Ogre. I am afraid you are counting indigenous people of Ceuta and Melilla who cannot be counted as they are considered Spanish. Which Spanish language by the way? It may be 360,706 but that would include people who cannot respond to a simple question. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me FayssalF, I do not say that there are 360,706 non-native speakers of Spanish in Morocco. Those numbers are givem by user User:Onofre Bouvila (now blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia; but still active at The Commons). What I am saying is that Morocco should not be in the map at all! The Ogre 18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the map is changed, which is good. I still think, northern morocco should remain light blue though... Your estimations may be about right for Tetouan, I feel the % of speakers is higher in Tanger, though. And Fayssal, considering that Moroccans are generally quite good with languages, 300,000 doesnt sound far off. After all, how many non-native users of English are there in Spain? --Burgas00 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you count me among the 360,706? I am sure i am not being counted.

300,000 doesnt sound far off. Yes, but mastering "El Castellano" got something to do w/ Instituto Cervantes. I've heard from a very close friend of mine that "Casablanca's Instituto Cervantes" is the second worldwide (after that of Beijing) in terms of enrollments. Another fact is that only Brazil, Morocco and the United States that got more than 4 IC centers. Does this fact mean anything? I don't know. Maybe i am wrong and the 300K is correct! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Atlantic connection in ancestry section

I have noticed a difficult to understand position by some users here to delete and ignore the Atlantic connection. Not only Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes speak of it extensively, but many other experts and dozens of articles. I invite users here to write about that section in the same way as other sections are included. The Iberian peninsula is of key importance in the Atlantic connection and the issue deserves a section. Go ahead I invite some users here to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.167.100 (talk • contribs)

This is nothing to be with DNA investigations. You are confusing a nationality (Spanish) with an ethnic group. A Spanish does not mean an ethnic group as an English does not means being 525m people including USA, Australia, Canada, etc...just because they are english speakers. Can anyone correct this mistake?

62.93.169.148 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)supermanel62.93.169.148 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a user called Burgass is vadalizing this article again, deleting th information about the Atlantic. ____

[edit] Ignatius Loyola

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ignatius Loyola (who is included in this article as representative of the Spaniard ethnicity) of Basque ethnicity, or is this some matter of controversy? Or are Basques being included as Spaniards in this article? Thoughts? Stiddy 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Stiddy. The Basques, the Catalans, the Castilians, the Galicians and others are being considered part of the global Spanish ethnicity in this article. See you around. The Ogre 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Cool, cool. Stiddy 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as you define Spanish as a nationality, makes sense to classify Basques, Catalans and Galicians as Spanish. But if you define Spanish as a race or ethnicity makes no sense. So which is the definition?. I consider Spanish a citizen of the Kingom of Spain (the official name). That makes the article, with all my respects, wrong when stating that there are 145m Spanish as total population of Spain is roughly 43m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.93.169.148 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative ?

Dosen't the "ard" sufix as in "Spaniard" indicate a pejorative meaning ? What does "more properly" refer in the first paragraph, at least when speaking to other europeans they always use "Spanish" never heared "spaniard". It seems the pejorative just entered in common use in the US, due to a history of conflict and the long influence of the Black_legend. It's like "jap" or "kraut" or whatever except it's so old people forgot it was negative at first. Or am i wrong ? --Helixdq 14:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Spaniard is ok. Spanish is the adjective, Spaniard is the noun. Although you may be right that the etymology was originally pejorative: that I don't know... By the way Im tired of user 200.xxx.xxx's ridiculous edits. Its been going on for months now.--Burgas00 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pictures top

I propose introducing pictures of Paul Gasol, Penelope Cruz and Fernando Alonso to complete those three.

I agree but I think there should be at least two women. --Burgas00 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Soory. The correct name is PAU GASSOL and not PAUL GASOL. Pau is a common children´s name in Catalan speaking areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.208.23 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree in that there should at least be two women in the infobox. Plus I think it the idea of including people from our times would be a good idea (obviously leaving someone like Miguel de Cervantes). What does everyone think about this? --Gibmetal 77^talk 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems odd to me that when you look at the photo you find Hernán Cortés, Miguel de Cervantes, Juan Ponce de León, and Antonio Banderas. Seems a little like a game finding which face is out of place and context. Epthorn 11:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JOaquin Cortes

I am glad to see one thing that I have always suspected.Spaniards are the least racist people in Europe. Joaquin Cortes is a Roma, but it seems that Spanish people have no problem with a minority representing them. Just try and do the same with the other European peoples articles, especially from the North of Europe:English, GErmans,etc, and you will see the reactions and what I mean If you try to introduce a minority. I support this approach. It is sad that the North Europeans participating in these peoples article are overtly so racist.

What is the point of this topic? I think you are being an idiotic bigot to group german and english people as racists. Of course there are going to be Northern European racists, but there will also be racists from all around the world. I'm curious as to why you have arrived at your conclusion that northern europeans are racists, and would like to know if anyone else on this page holds that same view. Canutethegreat 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 94% of Spaniards with Catholic Religion is not accurate

It´s inaccurate to state that the Spanish population is 94% Catholic. An objective data is that only 20% of the Spaniards taxpayers contribute to the Catholic church in their annually declaration of personal taxes. Another figue, only 8% of total population assist to a Church. And finally most of the Spanish new monks and priest are Latino as the lack of interest of Spaniards to join the Catholic church. More facts. In Spain divorce, abortion and homosexual marriage are legal. That does not means that Spaniards do not consider theirselves as Catholic, and also admitting that there are religious extremist minorities, but most of the Spaniard society is not on line with Rome / Pope "policy", while others declare theirselves as agnostic or atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.208.23 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I dont think ticking the "other social works/NGOs" box rather than the Catholic church box in the tax declaration makes one not a catholic. Furthermore, being Catholic is an identity and culture aswell as a faith. The same goes for any religion.--Burgas00 12:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. My friends in Spain are mostly atheist/agnostic yet still identify themselves as catholics. -- Ateo 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is that unbelievable 94% statement in the first paragraph of the article? there is a section about Religion with its correspondent sourced data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.40.134 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castilian Spanish?

This should be correctly addressed as Iberian Spanish since Castellano is a synonym for Spanish. Widespread or not, Castilian Spanish is not correct. -- Ateo 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... one can say it exists when opposing it to Canarian or Andalusian Spanish, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About current immigration text on 'Other Historical influences' section

Do users who edit this article know what means historical? Felve 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I have separated it in a new subsection.--Burgas00 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin people?

I would like to know how Spanish people are Latin people. First let me say I'm not trolling, because I would really like to know, but I can't see how that works. By Latin People that would mean that they would be related to the Latins of Italy. I know someone will say that Roman influence on Spain is not able to denied, and I agree that you can see the effects of the Roman Empire on Spain, but the Spanish people are not in any way related to Romans. The closest connection I see is that they are Mediterranean peoples. If the Spanish people are not ethnically related to the Latins of Italy how can they be Latin? Their language is derived from vulgar Latin, but that does not group with an ethnic group. Canutethegreat 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See Latin Europe--Burgas00 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can see why Spain would be considered part of "Latin Europe" (I'm not in any way arguing that), the fact is the Latins or Latin people are of an unrelated ethnic group, and should not, because of simularities in language, be grouped with other groups. In case there is some confusion on the subject, the Latins are a group of Italic Peoples, among whom the Romans, Etruscans, Samnites,etc. are members of. With that in mind, I hope people will see the point I'm trying to convey. I will NOT edit the article unless my arguement is agreed with. That said, the article is very nice, and I appreciate the hard work put into it. Canutethegreat 23:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Canute. The thing is that the Latins, in the way you describe them, are not a modern ethnic group of any kind. It describes the inhabitants of a region of Italy yes, but little more. People of Latin Europe however, do have a sense of common identity, history culture and perhaps, on a distant level, ancestry, which differentiates them from the rest of the world. The same goes for Anglosaxon peoples of Australia, England, and the US or for Arabic peoples from Morocco to Oman, or the Slavic people from Prague to Vladivostok. Ethnicity is, above all, subjective and exists when its members percieve it to exist. --Burgas00 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was my mistake, I thought they were being lumped into an ethnic group. Thanks for clarifying it. Canutethegreat 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramon y Cajal

Ramon y Cajal is the founder of modern neuroscience. I think his picture should be on the article together with other Spaniards.--Burgas00 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea changing Joaquín Cortés with Paco de Lucía, he was also a gypsy and it is often considered among the greatest flamenco/classic guitar players ever, while Cortes... well he is very famous but not much apreciated by the entendidos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.40.134 (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he is Gypsy... I do know he is half portuguese though. Anyways, sorry for insisting on Ramon y Cajal, but he is undisputedly the greatest scientist Spain ever produced. --Burgas00 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given up on the issue but it is quite obvious that Ramon y Cajal is far more notable than Almudena Fernandez or Joaquin Cortes and so on. --Asterion^talk 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To avoid the male bias of the template, I propose to bring back Rosalía de Castro and add Mariana Pineda to the infobox. --Asterion^talk 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know... they seem quite trivial personalities... Can you think of anyone else?--Burgas00 00:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not right now, but I am open to any suggestions. --Asterion^talk 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Severo Ochoa(Scientist)? or Picasso, Salvador Dali (paintors), —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.93.169.148 (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought about Severo Ochoa myself but went for Ramon y Cajal at the end. Dali or Picasso would be alright, I reckon. Though our main problem is to choose notable female Spaniards. Regards, Asterion^talk 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We could replace Joaquín Cortés with Lola Flores who was also Gipsy, bringing in another woman too. --Gibmetal 77^talk 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the most famous non-artist female figure is la pasionaria but we cant include her for obvious political reasons...--Burgas00 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect link?

Hello everyone I just got to this page from the Nationality law page I don't see why this page should be accessible trough a link called: Spanish nationality law, because the subject of the Spanish people page has nothing to do with law. I have tried to fix this myself but I don't know how to do it...

Just delete the link from the relevant article.--Burgas00 11:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate for Speedy Delete

I have removed the prod that was put up to delete this page. I see no discussion on this page of such a deletion which seems odd since there is current editing going on. Furthermore, while I can imagine some parts could be considered POV to some users, I don't see any offenses systematic enough to warrant the deletion of an article that seems like it has had a lot of work put into it. If the user would like to explain what POV is so damaging and widespread that it requires 'speedy' deletion, I would be interested in hearing it. Otherwise I think it would be much more appropriate to discuss ways to improve the article here. Thanks, Epthorn 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burgas and Asterion: stop pushing your agenda

Unsurprisingly I see that Burgas and Asterion have erased critic comments on the talk page wich debated on Burgas' manipulations and the general bias of this article (and a bit on the one about "andalusian people").

Seems that anything that gets a bit away from their agendas and continuously POV pushing is going to be called "trolling". They are treating this article like their personal hunting lodge, continuosuly and blatantly pushing their agendas and preventing anything that would disagree with their views.

I will inmediatly recover those talks and I expect them to be RESPECTED.

Burgas&Company: STOP editing talks, STOP pushing your POV and STOP damaging the image of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.209.31 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Burgas' point of view pushing throughout the history of this article is absolutely unacceptable. He has deleted information from the discussion page more than once etc. He will not stop.Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies, assuming good faith for a start. This is no place to insult other wikipedians either, as you have done to Burgas in the past using this page. Indeed, this page is meant to be used to discuss changes relevant to the article, not a general forum or a mean to smear other editors. I would appreciate if you could keep disruption to a minimum and discuss in a respectful way. Regards, --Asterion^talk 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish People article seems like it is officially hijacked by one user since a long long time. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith with him, but after reading some past discussions, reading his first blatantly afrocentric edits on this article and doing a little research on his nick on google it gets frankly a little hard to think that he isn't at least a "little" slanted. concedeme that, at least, "a little". Also i don't mind at all that he is a berber/arab with a Spanish fixation, (I'm part Castillian/part Lebanese) don't pull the race card one me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.172.16 (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Sentence added by Burgas00 on the Iberian Peninsula page: "it is the southernmost of the three southern European peninsulas (i.e. Iberian, Italian and Balkan peninsulas)" Now, seriously. you try to push your views whenever you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.172.16 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are that interested in me, I recommend that you go to my user page and check my user contributions. It is easier than googling "Burgas00".--Burgas00 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What we can see in your user page is the incredible amount of POVs and vandalizing you have done without being banned, wich is realy sad for the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.195.36 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalities

I am spanish and consider nonsense all the nationalities' thing going around nowadays as I myself, as the vast majority of people in any part of Spain, have heritage from most of the so called spanish nationalities in the article... Shouldn't we leave aside the racist connotations such as: "the Basques (a distinct people inhabiting the Basque country)" what is that "distinct"??? you can find basque descendants anywhere in Spain! (I am) we are totally mixed after hundreds of years of internal wars (not to forget that the Reconquest swept Spain from the North to the South...).

Also Aragon is not listed as one of the main nationalities, but we have to remember it can be indeed considered one of the main ones as it was a kingdom of its own (of the same entity as Castilla) when not even Galicians ever were (to mention just an indisputable one).

If other people watching this article agrees, I'd recommend changing "the Basques (a distinct people inhabiting the Basque country)" to "the Basques (some of the most ancestral inhabitants in northern Spain)", I think it is more than fair to everybody and we leave aside racist connotations... there are no pure races in Spain... let's not be little Hitlers.

(Galland) 213.37.230.42 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regional politics is a delicate issue in Spain. But denying that Basques are distinct from other Spaniards is a rather drastic step, dont you think?--Burgas00 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's delicate and complex in Spain but not in Morocco, where people like Burgas learn that the iberic peninsula is inhabited by basques, catalans and berebers. _________________________________________

We must admit the word nationality according to the legislation of each country, as the discussion about what is and what is not is contaminated by politics. The Spanish Constitution recognizes nationalities in their territory, so we must admit Basques as another nationality. I also read that it recognizes Gallician and Catalan nationalities. Are there any other? Manelher 15:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)ManelherManelher 15:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am Spanish too. I totally agree with Galland. One of my grandparents was Basque, and I know lots of basque people. All of them consider themselves Spanish. And I know nobody in Spain who thinks about a Basque nationality or something like that. Jaime 18:40 5 February 2008

[edit] 140 milion of Spanish people ?

The definition of Spanish refers to a nationality. In this case Spanish nationals are roughly 45m (see. www.ine.es) The article is confusing terms as using Spanish as an ethnicity or a group sharing the same language. This definition can be asume in the US, where race/ethnicity classification is extremely important ( i don´t understand why...) but this can not contaminate the definition of words as to start missusing it.

The article can be like this: "Spanish is a nationality of Spain with a total population of 45m. But Spanish speaking people which are noit Spanish, as they are nationals of countries others than Spain, are about 400m.

Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manelher (talk • contribs) 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE NOT INCLUDE MEXICO IN THE INFO BOX?

[edit] ancestry section

Explaining my (and ogres) recent reverts of edits by anonmymous user. Such estimations of percentages of "African" ancestry found in this or that source, which you wish to include are not certain, have a racialist tone and may understandably be deemed offensive. This section has attracted enough attention already, as can be seen from above trolling by other anonymous user/s. --Burgas00 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Burgas00 i see that you are the most active user on this article, so i hope you can answer me a question :) Why the ancestry section observes that the North African female contribution to the iberian gene pool, despite being less than 3% may have been in actually so considerable? It's because the very unrefined estimations of that 2003 study "joining the pillars of Hercules", or i'm missing something else? Because those estimations are not supported by other older and recent studies than i'm guessing you may have also read, so that paragraph can only lead to more edit warring and needless elongations and clarifications of that section (already a true magnet for trolls). Anyway, can you please show me studies that reveal in their results what would correspond to a 18% North African female contribution to the Iberian gene pool? I'm also thinking that we should put a disputed neutrality tag on this article, not because for what it says, but how it says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.130.68 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont know and I dont care. Just keep it as simple as possible and avoid giving percentages wherever possible. Particularly, whenever it involves anything controversial. I am now only active in this article insofar as I try to stop it from sliding into complete gibberish.--Burgas00 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then if you "don't know nor care", refrain to revert my edits please. Just use logic: if North African female contribution has been so considerable, why it doesn't show up on the results of other mtDNA genetic studies? We should only edit the ancestry section article based on hard scientific evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.130.68 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not recall reverting that particular edit. In fact, I agree with you entirely. --Burgas00 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern and southern spanish "dialects"???

"On the peninsula, Spanish is divided in two dialects: The northern dialect spoken in the Castilla y Leon, Asturias, Galicia, Cantabria, Basque Country, La Rioja, Navarra, Aragon, Catalonia and the northern half of the country more generally, and the southern dialect, spoken in Andalusia, most of Castilla la Mancha, Murcia, Extremadura, southern Valencia an Madrid regions and Canary Islands."

Who is the enlightened mind who has written that there are 2 dialects (northern and southern) of Spanish??? Sounds like a joke to me. I am 100% Spaniard and there are no differences between northern and southern Castilian. You may take account on the addition of several local expressions or a different spelling for some phonemes (like "ceceo" and "seseo" in some areas) but that's all. As far as I am concerned one person from Salamanca does not speaks a different Spanish than another one from Ciudad Real or Madrid, since they are castilians too. I don't agree with this statement, sorry, you MUST review this. Call me Scorpio (sorry but i am not into the wikipedia rules and i dont even have any identity here) --- scorpio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.165.244 (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Scorpio: If you are a Spanish speaker have a look at these articles:

1. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Dialectos_del_castellano_en_Espa%C3%B1a.png
2. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialecto_castellano_septentrional
3. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectos_de_transici%C3%B3n_entre_andaluz_y_castellano
4. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialecto_andaluz

--Burgas00 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All of your links redirect to wikipedia places, and therefore anyone can write whatever they like. Of course, there are a light different spelling, but the way the article has been redacted makes anyone think of a stronger linguistic difference, what is not true at all.

There is a deeper difference between the Iberian Castilian and the Latin American one, than these northern and southern spelling that the article treats like dialects.

Same as for the basques being a "different" people. Different in what? language? Because the "racial card" that some try to play on this matter is very biased about a strange and mythical basque pink legend. Please be real!

Then, every Spanish autonomy with an own idiomatic peculiarity would be different in the same degree as the basques "may be" as a result of the same thesys. Thus, for me, most of that part of the article is plain bullshit. Sorry, but I can't take that. Scorpio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.128.105 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is not really a division between peninsular Spanish and latin american spanish for the simple reason that there are many different dialects of Spanish in Latin America. Most of them are strongly influenced by Canarian and Andalusian Spanish (particularly Caribbean Spanish), others have been more strongly influenced by northern castilian (such as north central mexican). Yet others bear the strong imprint of third languages (such as rioplatense spanish which is strongly influenced by Italian).

In any case, Mexican and the Spanish you speak (I assume you are from Spain) are closer to each other than Mexican is to Argentinian. I think as a Spaniard you should know these things. Try reading a little about your own language and culture.:-) --Burgas00 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the word "dialect" is nowadays considered taboo in some circles in Spain, preferring the politically correct but utterly meaningless "Modalidades lingüísticas". Fortunately, English-language sources do not suffer from such an ailment... Asterion^talk 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Burgass... In any case, Spanish is the same far from both the Argentinian (with the italianized influences they have) as from the Mexican (with so many borrowed native american/aztec/maya words and strong USA's English influence). I know pretty well about my own language and culture.  ;-)

--User:Scorpio 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Asterion that comment you just made is patronizing and quite stupid. Everything that has to do with the languages of Spain is obviously more widely and deeply studied in Spain than in any other place, and the resolutions of the diferent official linguistic institutions should be the ones we use. You are just assuming a political pov stance against the correct terminolgy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poveda (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a Spaniard myself, I cannot see how I can be patronising. Remember to assume good faith and avoid namecalling, please. The English Wikipedia does not abide by the RAE. Dialect is the correct terminology in English language indeed. Asterion^talk 01:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the expression "Dialecto" in Spanish has negative connotations due to its widespread use during the Francoist dictatorship to refer with disdain to everything which was not standard spanish. Hence the expression modalidad linguistica used today.--Burgas00 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanics in the United States - requested move

Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at Hispanics in the United States, due to the request that the page be moved to Hispanic Americans. Would you like to comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the bias template in the article

One or two months ago, I wrote at this talk page about the evident point of view showed by the usual editors of this article. I think the disproportionate size of the ancestry section and the small size of the nationalities section is quite expressive of my assertion. Also many people have complained about this issue and they have been censored only because they've spoken the truth. Felve (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The size of the ancestry section is indeed a problem. It has a natural tendence to grow as it seems to get disproportionate attention. Me and The Ogre have been recently trying to keep it within certain limits.--Burgas00 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the question of northern and southern dialects...

I have found a good site which explains each aspect of the phonetic difference between northern and southern spanish with maps included:

• On geographic reach of ceceo and seseo: http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_ceseo_e.php
• On the elision of the final "L" in caracol for example: http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_lfinal_e.php
• On the elision of the final "R" http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_rfinal_e.php
• On the distinguishing between "Y" and "LL": http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_yll_e.php
• On the aspiration of the J, aspired fricative H as opposed to a postvelar fricative X: http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_xh_e.php
• On the elision of the final Z http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_zfinal_e.php
• Post vowel aspiration of the S (e.g AviHpa instead of Avispa) http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_aspira_e.php
• Intervowel elision of the D "Cazaor" insead of "cazador": http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_dinter_e.php
• Final D elision: http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_dfinal_e.php
• D elision in ado suffixes. http://www.jotamartin.byethost33.com/alpi_ado_e.php

Phonetically, there is a clear division in Spanish between the Northern and Southern dialects which divides the country roughly in two. --Burgas00 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Maybe, but not the divisions that you or whoever, explains in the article. The largest number of differences among spelling are located in Andalusia, Extremadura, some areas of Valencia and Murcia. You mentioned (and I took note of that) Madrid and other cities of Castille-La Mancha as if they had a different dialect and that is what i wanted to mean that there is not a different accent or spelling and anyone from Salamanca understands perfectly any person from Madrid or Ciudad Real (Castillan cities too). If you still want to make us believe that there are two different dialects inside of Castille itself, at least keep a real geographic trace because you are not doing it so.There is nothing bad on talking about spanish dialectal variations, but the form you have explained sounds like a wrong impression and not real.

--Scorpio 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)---

Yes Scorpio, I had not properly read the section. I see that you are right in that the section is misleading. What do you think about the modifications I just made?--Burgas00 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the maps I have offered do not include:

• The fusion of the L and R as in er-arcalde for el alcalde.
• Pronounciation of CH as Sh as in "Loḥ Mushashoh" for "los muchachos"
• The so-called "Heheo" as in Noḥotroḥ-ḥabemo' for "Nosotros sabemos"

...among many other distinguishing features of Andalusian Spanish. The three above, I think, are not generally found in any transitional dialect apart from Andalusian (except maybe in southern Extremadura). --Burgas00 (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spanish people are 100% european, not arab. Learn about the famous "repopulation processes" each time we reconquered new territories. That small 3% legacy is only present in the very south of Andalucia and south of Portugal, so it's ridiculous giving it such importance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.22.196 (talk • contribs)

There is a very simple reason. The user mainly responsible for that part is Burgass, a Moroccan who likes to say that he is not a Moroccan. He likes to describe the Spanish in his own image. That is all. You sould have seen his earlier versions. They devoted almost the entire section to his dear North African influence. He seems very interested in this article. Billythekid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is tiresome seeing combined figures for Portugal and Spain. The reason for their inclusion is obvious - southern Portugal in particular has a higher level of African influence than the rest of Iberia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.84.78 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Newyorker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is being edited way too many times by non reliable sources - see Burgass - with a strange fixation on spaniards (poor them). Being the worst of all the totally wrong (dunno if on purpose) genetic information. It's surprising how the user is still allowed to edit this article or how he's unable to just let it be and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.44.251 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he is the greatest menace to the integrity ofthis article, from the very beginning. Newyorker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of Muslim Rule

201.240.241.177, you're being very, very tiresome - The genetic contribution of Iberians to NW Africans is irrelevant here, and what matters in this article is the NW African contribution to Iberian y-chromes. Therefore that last paragraph on bi-directional movements really should be integrated into the y-chromosomal paragraph at the beginning of this section - and not be tacked on at the end after what is effectively the conclusion of the whole section - namely, that the genetic cntribution of the Muslim year was small compared to earlier pre-Islamic contributions. Your continued messing up of the logical layout of this section is noted .(I've also replaced some dead links) Provocateur (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont want to get involved in these issues but is the last paragraph on that section not a bit repetitive? It seems to add no new information...--Burgas00 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is so much information concerning Portugal here in the Spanish article and not in the Portuguese people article Muslim legacy-genetic section?. Too weird.Newuser.

The answer is there is so much information of that kind in this article in order to defame Spanish people. Felve (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that information concerning mainly Portugal should be in Portugal. It is ridiculous to have it in Spain. I think there is a lot of cherry picking in this article and goes in the direction that Felve points out.

By the way, google the following:

Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of ...

It deals with the question directly. It is a much wider study than most cherry picked here and shows the big picture in the European context. Read it carefully if your are interested and want to uncover the big agendas behind this article right now. And do not confuse concepts. The genetic study is about present populations.

Dont want to get involved in these issues but is the last paragraph on that section not a bit repetitive? It seems to add no new information...--Burgas00 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is so much information concerning Portugal here in the Spanish article and not in the Portuguese people article Muslim legacy-genetic section?. Too weird.Newuser.

The answer is there is so much information of that kind in this article in order to defame Spanish people. Felve (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that information concerning mainly Portugal should be in Portugal. It is ridiculous to have it in Spain. I think there is a lot of cherry picking in this article and goes in the direction that Felve points out.

By the way, google the following:

Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of ...

It deals with the question directly. It is a much wider study than most cherry picked here and shows the big picture in the European context. Read it carefully if your are interested and want to uncover the big agendas behind this article right now. And do not confuse concepts. The genetic study is about present populations.

See this table:

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

Basque refers to Paleolithic ancestry. It is called Basque because they are supposed to represent that population best. The North African contribution is addressed. And also the Sub-Saharan African, which is deemed negligible. Read article well: Spain is IberiaS. Portugal is IberiaP, similar but not the same.

See also:

• Macdonald's Haplogroup map

Very interesting because it again shows a big picture.In the case of Portugal, a small but significant portion of Sub-Saharan African DNA can be seen in the pie (dark green, 2 page), being negligible in Spain. Portugal,a small country of 10 million people with a huge empire in comparison with its population, much of it in Africa (Angola, Mozanbique, etc) has experienced some subsaharan African influence, which is not present in Spain in the same degree. To use these highly cherry picked articles that deal mainly with a Portuguese phenomenon to highlight it to refer to Spanish people and at the same time ignore it altogether in the Portuguese people article is one of the most twisted propaganda operations in Wiki.

As to the first article see the results:

Results

Admixture Proportions (4 Parental Populations): Y Chromosome and mtDNA With few exceptions, the mean admixture proportions estimated from mitochondrial and NRY data (table 3) fall in the range [0%–100%]. Values exceeding this range would indicate that a population considered a hybrid has more extreme characteristics than one of the parental populations. That may occasionally happen if recent genetic drift was strong, but a large number of values greater than 100% or smaller than 0 would suggest errors either in the model used or in the parental populations chosen. However, only slightly negative values, not exceeding –15%, are occasionally observed for the North African and North-Eastern Europe contribution to European groups of samples. Standard deviations are in most cases lower than 10% but can reach 15% in some regions.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

   Table 3 Weighted Average Across Loci, and Standard Deviations (SD), of the Estimated Contributions of 4 Parental Populations to European Populations.

Even after Bonferroni's correction for multiple tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1995), significant heterogeneity between loci is observed for several groups of samples (see table 3). This finding is in agreement with previous results indicating that the Y chromosome and mtDNA have different distributions in Europe (Dupanloup et al. 2003) and indeed worldwide (Seielstad, Minch, and Cavalli-Sforza 1998; Harris and Hey 1999).

The estimated North African contribution to the European gene pools is low, less than 2% on average (range: –10.7% in Scandinavia, 16.6% in Sardinia for molecular estimates; –4.1% in Scandinavia, 8.2% in Portugal, for frequency estimates). In more than one-third of the samples, especially in Northern Europe, the estimated North African admixture does not differ significantly from zero, suggesting that genes from North Africa essentially do not occur in the gene pools of these regions. In general, the estimated contributions from North-Eastern Europe are higher than the African contributions, but they still represent a small component of genetic diversity, accounting for between 10.5% (molecular estimates) and 17.4% (frequency estimates) of the total. Variation among regions is high, and most groups show little or no North-Eastern Europe admixture. The exceptions are Finland and Eastern Europe, where roughly 95% and 50% of the gene pools, respectively, seem to come from North-Eastern European ancestors.

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

Admixture Proportions (2 Parental Populations): All Loci With the increase of the number of systems considered (6 to 8 mitochondrial and nuclear systems, depending on the number of autosomal loci available in each population), the statistical errors of the admixture coefficients decrease substantially (all below 8%; table 4). The Near Eastern contribution is generally high, with a mean of 49.4% across Europe (range: 20.8% in England, 79.0% in the Balkans) when considering molecular information and 54.5% (22.1% in England, 95.6% in Finland) when considering only the frequency of haplotypes. However, there is reason to mistrust the estimates obtained for Finland. Indeed, more than 90% of the alleles observed there seem to have come from North-Eastern Europe (table 3), so its population can by no means be regarded as a hybrid between Basques and Near Easterners (table 4). The extent to which an incorrect choice of parental populations leads to wrong results is investigated by simulation in a successive section of this paper. At any rate, when Finland is excluded from calculations, the average Near Eastern contributions become 48.3% (molecular estimates) and 50.7% (frequency estimates).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

   Table 4 Weighted Average Across Six to Eight Loci, and Standard Deviations (SD), of the Estimated Near Eastern Contribution to European Gene Pools.

Heterogeneity among the estimates computed for the different systems is nominally significant in central Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, Finland and Scandinavia, and remains significant in the Balkans even after Bonferroni's correction for multiple tests. Note that, with the test we used, the probability to reject the null hypothesis (homogeneity across loci) when true was higher than the nominal 5%. However, this result confirms that analyses of single markers are likely to yield inaccurate estimates of demographic parameters.

In relation to the North African issue it states:

Regression Analysis

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

And guess what?

This article and others have been erased several times here and in the genetic history of Europe article, which shows the degree of propaganda invoveld here and there.

Why?

Because of one simple reason, becasue they have found out one of the most interesting discoveries of population genetics lately:

1.Basques and other Iberians (Spaniards and Portuguese) are the most characteristically European in terms of biological ancestry. In other words, the closest to the Primitive Europeans, who continue to be a majority in Europe, especially in Western Europe.

And this discovery has come across two types that are very common in internet:

1. The Nordicist, who after centuries of propaganda does not like the new scenario.

2. The Afrocentrist, who had been clinging to Nordicist theories to try something that we all know.

In short, I doubt very much that these articles will really show the real state of the question with the kind of people that I have mentioned and their propaganda. Jandemorepeichen.

[edit] Vandalism

AS expected, some contributions made in the article and discussed in the section above have been erased. I leav3e it up for others users to judge. Jademorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These have been the two quotes erased:

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

And

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

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

Jademorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Figure 3 quotes studies from 1999 and 2001 which are now outdated. Have a look at results from more recent studies. As for the rest of the article, it is irrelevant to the section. --84.71.66.143 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is from 2004 by experts, not by you, whoever you are and invloving many more gnetic markers than most in the article. So, start erasing all those from 2004 or older, in fact most of them, especially those from the Muslim legacy part.Stop pulling people's legs. But this is the type of position of people who just want to push their agendas. They cherry pìck articles and erase others with the most ridiculous excuses. What a place of propaganda this is!. This is one of the articles (published by Oxford) that has been the target of both Afrocentrists and Nordicists in several palces in Wiki all the time. Just proof for what I say. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

In the face of ridiculous constant vandalism on this article, clearly by one person who is unregistered, I will revert, whenever possible, to the last registered user, most likely to the Ogre, who seems to be the most active constructive editor here.--Burgas00 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A LOT OF MISTAKES..

1. In argentina no more than 25% of the people is spanish origin, and if you consider the basque as another etnich group the % is maximum 20 2. Charles V was not spanish, and he was NOT able to speack spanish!! 3. The Catalans (Dali, ecc...) are NOT spaniards!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.pasi (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying Catalans (or, one may add, Basques, Galicians, Cantabrians, etc) are not Spaniards is just like saying that Scots, Welsh and Cornish are not Britons - the problem is confusing "Spanish" with "Castilian" - the latter is a subset of the former, but the confusion is common. A lot of the confusion comes from the American definition of Spanish used in the introduction, which is alien to most Europeans - including Spaniards. Europeans do not recognise the Spanish speaking peoples of the Americas as "Spaniards". As for only 25 % of Argentinians being "Spanish" it would be more accurate to say that nearly all Argentinians, other than recent arrivals, have (some) Spanish ancestry, just as most Mexicans and Peruvians and Chileans, do - but of course the degreee of which ancestry changes radically from one country to another - most Mexicans are overwhelmingly of Amerindian origin, but this does not mean they have no Spanish ancestry - most do, but it is of much less importance than their indigenous origins. I dont know the situation in Argentina - there was mass migration in the post colonial period in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially from Italy and Spain, but also considerable amounts from other European countries. By now they are pretty much thoroughly mixed - though some genetic study I saw also detected small, but not insubstantial traces of Amerindian ancestry - not surprising given Argentina's long colonial history. As for Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire (Charles I of Spain) was Spanish by his mother Juana of Castile, daughter of Isabel I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon. Charles owed much of his power in very large part to the tireless efforts of his Spanish grandparents to create the most modern and corrupt free administration and armies in Europe, and even cleaned the Spanish church of much of the corruption and politics that sent Martin Luther into a reformation frenzy in the Holy Roman empire. Charles I/V famously stated that "“I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse.” Finally exhausted by the endless challanges of his long reign he chose to retire to Yuste, in Spain. If any country has the right to claim him as its own Spain certainly does. Provocateur (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for Semi-protection

Hello everyone! This page is constantly under attack by anon users who try to shift the sourced statements regarding Spanish people into their own POV views - generally trying to minimize or erase the data that demonstrates some genetic connections to some North African populations, or, quite the reverse, trying to say that Spaniards "are" North Africans or just plainly Africans. This is a constant problem by anons like:

• 200.121.211.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 201.240.113.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 190.128.214.181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Paraguay)
• 168.226.104.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Argentina)
• 200.121.208.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru) - Blocked on 05:57, 23 February 2008 by User:East718 with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(racist pov pushing)
• 190.232.4.175 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 200.121.191.191 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 201.240.241.32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 200.126.102.37 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Chile)
• 124.187.143.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Australia)
• 201.240.113.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 200.121.173.18 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 200.121.191.22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 200.121.212.234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• 200.121.192.248 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (Peru)
• Etc, etc...

I think you get the picture: this is probably always the Peruvian guy most of the time, and it's interesting how most of these types of edits come from Hispanic South America (not even Spain!); the Australian, which pops up several times is trying to convince the world that Spanish are somehow Semitic and that their closests ethnic groups are the Arabs and Sephardi Jews. This is not just an edit war. These anon repeatedly introduced changes that are deemed wrong by usual serious users, they never establish a dialogue or even given reasons or explanations for their edits. They are just vandals!

So what I poppose is that this article receives a Semi-protection (disables editing for anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old). I believe it satisfies the conditions and could be a way to stop these constant disruptive intrusions. What does everyone think? The Ogre (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I, for one, agree with myself! The Ogre (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

In fact, User:Nlu has just semi-protected the article. The Ogre (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, semi- or full-protection requests should be directed to WP:RFPP. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew it in fact, but I though there should be some discussion before to see if there was some consensus. Thanks again! The Ogre (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is this the reason why this quote has been erased again?

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

Source: Oxford Journals. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk • contribs)

[edit] There's a reference that has a mis-spelling "acoording"

{{editprotected}} Footnote #30 has a mis-spelling of "according". Only one "c" is used in the footnote. (I wish my RFA had passed so I would not have to bother anybody.) Jason Quinn (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The image is not valid

Dali was catelonian, no? So what is he doing in this image?? This article is not about Spanish citizens vut about the ethnic group!!! Shpakovich 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I denouce user Burgas

This user has been erasing studies and quotes like the following all the time. He is a manipulator. I propose that is is banned. He comes up with all ridiculous arguments to erase what he does not like as a Moroccan who uses this page for his personal propaganda about Spanish people.

See his latest deletion:

In fact, a European wide study including Spaniards states: No significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited, establishing the North African contribution at 2.5/3.4%. [[1]] [[2]]

[edit] Vandals

Some vandals are systematically deleting content:

See:

In the North African section.

In fact, a European wide study including Spaniards states: No significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited, establishing the North African contribution at 2.5/3.4%. [[3]] [[4]]

In addition, a wide ranging study (published 2007) using 6,501 unrelated Y-chromosome samples from 81 populations found that: “Considering both these E-M78 sub-haplogroups (E-V12, E-V22, E-V65) and the E-M81 haplogroup, the contribution of northern African lineages to the entire male gene pool of Iberia is 5.6%. ”^[1]

In the Paleolithic section.

According to another European wide study, the main components in the European genomes appear to derive from ancestors whose features were similar to those of modern Basques and Near Easterners, with average values greater than 35% for both these parental populations, regardless of whether or not molecular information is taken into account. The lowest degree of both Basque and Near Eastern admixture is found in Finland, whereas the highest values are, respectively, 70% ("Basque") in Spain and more than 60% ("Near Eastern") in the Balkans.[[5]][[6]]

These two articles that deal with the issue and the spanish directly and which are very informative are being systematically erased (guess why?)Both have been published by Oxford. It seems that Oxford is not good enough for some people here.

In addtiton, this is the situation>:

1. These people seem to favour articles that are from the 1990s, in this field quite outdated, and then systematically erase those from the 2000s, (these two are from 2004 and 2007), Just see and you will realise that most articles in the North African section which seem fine , only analyse one genetic marker and are from the 1990s. How come these people, whoever they are, erase those from the 2000s, obvioulsy much more updated, and like to leave those old ones?

2. The articles that these people like to leave refer in most cases to Iberia. Iberia is not Spain, it is Spain plus Portugal and in fact most of that information concerns Portugal more than Spain. But then, these newer articles, that make direct reference not only to Iberia as a whole, but exactly to Spain, are systematically erased.

Just read yourselves in detail and take your time to see the type of manipulation we are talking about here. It is completely unacceptable. Just watch out.

On the other hand I propose the following question. If the sections are considered too long, what shall we erase, articles from the 1990s or articles from the 2000s? I think the response is obvious, unless propaganda and agenda is the main point here and not updated objective information. Jandemorepeichen.

And there is more. See:

Recent development of methodologies for defining population structure using genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism markers has led a 2006 study to conclude that there is clear and consistent division between “northern” and “southern” European population groups. This study, involving 74 Spanish American participants strongly suggested a close genetic relationship between Greeks, Italians, Portuguese and Spaniards, whereas all European populations north of the Alps and the Pyrenees (except for Ashkenazi Jews) fell squarely into a separate "Northern" population group.[^[2]