Talk:Spaniards/Archive 1

message: There should be an explanation of the relation between the ethnicity of people speaking Castilian and those speaking e.g. Catalan or Galician. If they are integrated, how much is that because of ethnic origin and how much is it because of the nation state? --Joy [shallot] 03:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [No title] 

message: Is everyone sure 10 million Mexicans and 8 million Colombians are ethnically White Spainard?!?! Antidote 03:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I edited this page and gave the references, both online and books and it seems this is not good enough for some people. Until there is COUNTER evidence to support some Germanic origins of the Spaniards exclusively, I believe my edits are quite valid. Thanks. Tombseye 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to this page

message: The term "Moors" has been described as "a disparaging Christian term for Muslims", akin to calling African-Americans the N word.  "Muslim" is the term preferred by academics, while the word "Moor" has ceased to be used by scholars. DelDav 06:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's a good point actually. The term Moors was actually just Spanish for Muslim as they used that term for Malays in the Phillipines too. Probably a good idea to still mention that they are popularly known as Moors, but were just Muslims originally mainly of Berber-Arab origin and then later mostly native Iberians. Tombseye 08:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The term Muslim adds nothing to the article. The term Moors gives something respecting the context. We don't call Vandals Pagans as well. Cheers -- "Szvest 09:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did a compromise edit and simply included Moor as the popular term while clarifying that Muslims in Spain weren't entirely Arab Berbers, since actually most weren't. The term Moor does simply mean Muslim and a few Spaniards I've talked to just say Muslims when speaking in English and not Moros so this usage may in fact have changed in Spain as well, but I didn't ask people when I was there so I'm not 100% on that. Tombseye 18:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslim, Arab and Moor aren't the same. Moor is the same as people from Magrehb, muslim or not. Arab are people from Saudi Arabia. Muslim are people who follow Mahoma's religion. Spain was conquest by muslim moors leaded by muslims arabs from north Magrehb. All these words are used by everybody in Spain today and doesn't mean the same, for example, King Faud of Saudi Arabia when comed to Spain was called Arab, and he was muslim, but moroccan are Moors. There are spanish muslims, that aren't nor arab nor moor nut who had converted to muslim. Felipealvarez 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Moors"

message: Epf, it is better to mention that info in the article instead of erasing it. Most people do not know about Aragoneses or maybe Catalans.  Maybe they got a small space withjin the article. Szvest 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other ethnic groups

message: Castillians are very few in Spain. The largest group are the Andalusians ( 7 to 8 million), but if you add these to the Basques, Catalans (including Valencians and people from Baleares), Galicians, Canarians, Asturians, Aragonese...you have well over half of the population. Plus inhabitants of the Madrid region (around 5 million) are by no means all of Castillian origin, Madrid being a region of immigration from all parts of Spain. So.... Castillians are a minority in Spain. Another thing is the issue of Castillian/Spanish speakers. They are a majority ofcourse... even in the Basque country, who's independence you support 8-)--Burgas00 20:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks! --Khoikhoi 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoikhoi 

message: Hi Epf! As in the French people page, to be Spanish is not to be member of an alleged "ethnic group" of Spanish but to have the Spanish nationality. Catalans, or Basques, may be qualified as "ethnic groups". Not "Spanish". This explains why there is no link to the Spanish Wikipedia here: this entry simply doesn't exist overthere, with good reasons. 81.64.152.126 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article can reflect a Spanish group that encompasses the Castillians and others who have been assimilated with them. Obviously, this would leave out at the very least the Catalans and Basques who are the main regional groups who continue to speak their regional languages and view themselves as somewhat distinct from the Spanish. Otherwise, the article does mostly focus upon the Spaniards, but does need some changes that may not be easy to make such as the population stats. Many Spaniards who immigrated to the Americas came from a varied background and weren't all Castillians/Andalusians etc. No easy way to determine these stats either. I suggest we go with the 3 regional groups as distinct: Spaniards, Catalans, and Basques. The other regional groups, aside from occassionally claiming some distinction from the Spaniards, speak Spanish and are largely assimilated such as the Galacians, Andalusians etc. Tombseye 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I know as I've been to Spain myself, but I was referring to language use and assimilation within the Spanish cultural group as well. It's a dicey issue regardless. Obviously, of the people in Spain, the Catalans and Basques exhibit more nationalist tendencies and continue to speak regional languages alongside Spanish. I was drawing this arbitrary line simply because otherwise we might as well scrap the article on the Spanish OR use it as a national and not ethnic group article and then write articles on the various peoples of Spain. I do believe that there should be an article on the core people who identify with Spanish as a language and an ethnic group, while giving the other peoples their own articles. This arrangement won't please everyone, but then that's what happens with these peoples articles, you can't please everyone. Tombseye 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish is a nationality, not an ethnic 

message: The Spanish are Latin because their language, culture, religion was brought to Spain by the Latins, also called the Romans. Besides, the Spanish are also Mediterranean, like the Romans themselves. The Mediterranean is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. No other race comes even close to it in terms of creating great civilizations.
: Spaniards are of several European subraces, and the Mediterraneans are a subdivision of the caucasoid race not a race Digitalseal 11:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spanish are Latin and Mediterranean 

message: As I was saying, it is better to go straight to the source i.e. the genetic studies themselves than going to this site which is clearly "racialist" if not racist and has the political agenda of dispelling "beliefs of nordicists, afrocentrists and multiracialists", whatever that means. In any case I have found the source of the study u wanted to add and inserted it into the article. As for the Anthropometric "proof" used on your site, this is not considered a science since the 1940s and can certainly not be used to discern the origin of a person. It reminds me of the Nazi Soviet pact, where Hitler measured Stalin's nose to see if he had any jewish blood before going ahead with the pact.
You can use the info on what the people look like present on your site if u want, but not with the intention of proving that they have this or that origin. Btw howbout u sign up with a username to wikipedia ?--Burgas00 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Research 

message: I have eliminated the racial reality page from the sources as it does not look like a reliable source.It clearly has a political agenda, using information in a more or less tendentious way to prove a point. It is not, in any case, a neutral article. Its aim, as awhole, is to prove that southern Europeans are as "white" or "whiter" than northern europeans. Many of its claims may be correct (some of them are not) but the nature of the article in itself invalidates it as a reliable source. The issue on genetic influx from north africa in Spaniards is an example of this. Multiple sources (from scientific journals) have been added to the "spanish people" page by wiki users which conclude that there has been a considerable influx. All the articles quoted by the racial reality site minimise or deny this influx. I dont know which position is correct since I am not an expert on the issue, but the latter position is, for the moment, suspect due to the political agenda clearly stated on the source used. The section on Italian people is similar, it aims to prove that the divide between Northern and Southern Italians is minimal. It probably is, I have never been to Italy myself, but the writer of the article is clearly being political, making use of genetics to combat the sense of superiority held by northern italians. The use of "random pictures" on the sight is also clearly manipulative. (It was noted that all the pictures of "spanish crowds" came from the strongly celtic northwestern region of Galicia.) In any case, it is silly, in my opinion to combat racism using racism and quite pathetic to use the "But we ARE white" argument. As if it mattered! Anyways this is not the reason I oppose the use of the source. I oppose it simply on the grounds of its lack of neutrality.
Cheers from Paris. We are under snow right now!--84.101.86.170 10:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Reality Source 

message: Sounds like nonsense to me, according to spanish history books not many did immigrate to the U.S., Did a bunch of mestizos and unmixed amerindians from mexico immigrate to the united states and lie about being spaniards? Digitalseal 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are not 15 millions Spaniards in the U.S. 

message: * Comas et al. (2000) Alu insertion polymorphisms in NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula: evidence for a strong genetic boundary through the Gibraltar Straits. Hum Genet; 107(4):312-9
:: An analysis of 11 Alu insertion polymorphisms...has been performed in several NW African...and Iberian...populations. Genetic distances and principal component analyses show a clear differentiation of NW African and Iberian groups of samples, suggesting a strong genetic barrier matching the geographical Mediterranean Sea barrier. The restriction to gene flow may be attributed to the navigational hazards across the Straits, but cultural factors must also have played a role. ... Iberian samples show a substantial degree of homogeneity and fall within the cluster of European-based genetic diversity.
::: http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2867/pcplot0gd.jpg
* Bosch et al. (2001) High-resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet; 68(4):1019-29
:: The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool. 
This source is already included in the article
* Flores et al. (2004) Reduced genetic structure of the Iberian peninsula revealed by Y-chromosome analysis: implications for population demography. Eur J Hum Genet; 12(10):855-63
:: Coincidentally, spatial analysis of genetic distances points to a focal distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this area. These results indicate that neither old or recent Levantine expansions nor North African contacts have influenced the current Iberian Y-chromosome diversity so that geographical patterns can be identified. ... The Y-chromosome variation landscape in Iberia was also evaluated using principal component analysis, which included samples with highly resolved Y-chromosome data from Europe...Near East...and Northwest Africa.... The first two components of the analysis accounted for 83.9% of genetic variance, and produced three well-separated clusters of populations, evidencing the sharp differences between the Y-chromosome pool of Western Europe, Near East and Northwest Africa (Figure 4).
::: http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8581/iberians.jpg
* Nasidze et al. (2003) Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome. Hum Genet; 112(3):255-61
:: Andalusians and Catalans both cluster amongst other western Europeans:
::: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2316/plot3ua.jpg
* Hammer et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci; 97(12):6769-74
:: Spaniards (Spa) cluster right next to Germans (Ger) and far from North Africans:
::: http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9948/plot20uj.jpg
And finally, this study looks at the exact same blood group systems as this one  (plus two more, and two serum protein systems), yet finds North Africans and Iberians to be unrelated:
* Simoni et al. (1999) Patterns of gene flow inferred from genetic distances in the Mediterranean region Hum Biol; 71(3):399-415
:: Here, we present an analysis of a data set of 10 allele frequencies in 39 populations of the Mediterranean region. ... The main boundaries separate the northern and the southern coasts, especially in their western portions; in addition, several localities appear genetically isolated. The comparatively high genetic differentiation across the western Mediterranean, where the sea distances between localities are shorter, strongly suggests that the sea distance by itself can hardly be regarded as a major isolating factor among these populations. On the contrary, the decrease in genetic resemblance between populations of the 2 coasts as one proceeds westward may reflect an increased genetic exchange in the eastern Mediterranean basin or independent human dispersal along the 2 coasts or both. ...
:: The 5 strongest barriers inferred from Prevosti's distance divide the Mediterranean area into 2 large clusters, a northern cluster and a southern cluster. The first boundary, in particular, separates Morocco and Algeria from Spain, France, and Sardinia, despite the fact that sea distances between the 2 main coasts are much shorter than in the eastern portion of the region. ...
:: The genetic boundary separating northern Morocco and Algeria from southern Spain appears as the zone of sharpest genetic change using Prevosti's distances and as the second most significant zone of change (after the zone separating Israeli Jews from all their neighbors) using Nei's distances.
One more study according to which:
...new data are consistent with a main north to south genetic differentiation in the Mediterranean region. However, with regard to other European groups, the La Alpujarra (southern Spain) population shows a particular affinity with North Africans... (oh no!!! :-) )
--Cassius80 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous genetic studies on the Spanish 

message: After reading the section "Genetic affinities" I think it does not really reflect the main points. It seems obvious that there are genetic affinities with both Berbers from North Africa and with people from Northern Europe, but while that seems to be the case, those affinities are not the dominant ones. The most important genetic affinities link the Spanish to other European populations, especially the Italians and also the Portuguese, of course. I quote this part from the Italian people article:
When focusing in SW Europe, very small (0.1%), non-significant differences were found between Iberians and Italians, in agreement with the large mtDNA homogeneity described in Europe (Simoni et al. 2000a, 2000b; Helgason et al. 2000; see also Richards et al. 2002).[11] 
So, I think there is a lack of consistency between the Spanish people article and the Italian one. This part of the article should therefore be redone, balancing it properly, placing at the center the main genetic affinities, and mentioning also the genetic affinities with other peoples, like Berbers and Northern Europeans. Right now, as you can see, the amount devoted to both North Africa and Northern Europe eclipse the main Genetic Affinity with other Southern Europeans.
i agree although the reason is that Spain's Southern European Mediterranean ancestry is taken for granted. The other norther european and north african ancestries, being less impotant yet more controversial are argued in detail. perhaps you are right that spaniard's basic origins should be highlighted more clearly at the beginning of the section.--Cassius80 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the section genetic affinities balanced? 

message: This issue has been debate in quite great length on the talk page of user Epf. Please feel free to go there and read, and if need be import the discussion here to continue it if any users sees it necessary.
My last remark on the matter, after having successfully made my case on the Chilean population, is user Epf's now change of strance. From Epf's edit summary; "this is not stating that the majorityo f Chileans are wholly European or not mestizo, of course not, it is just saying that the majority have primarily or partial Spanish ancestry" I already answered in my edit summary, 95% of Chileans are mixed. 60% of Chileans are visibly mestizo & the average admixture in that visibly mestizo population is 57% European & 43% Amerindian. That admixture average does not equal "ethnic Spanish" no more than 41% European, 56% Amerindian and 3% African in the AVERAGE Mexican mestizo would equal an Amerindian. The difference among the visibly mestizo Mexican and mestizo Chilean is not that large, both cluster around 50%, one just beneath the other just above. Both can truthfully be stated as being more Spanish or more Amerindian, since one goes slightly over 50% on the Spanish side, and the other slightly over 50% on the Amerindian side. Neither of the visibly mestizo population (whom are the majority), however, can be stated as "PRIMARLY" Spanish or Amerindian. Those Mexicans who are of primarily Amerindian ancestry are indeed already excluded from the uninflated mestizo population (60% uninflated, when inflated it is given 80% including phenotypically Amerindian people by virtue of distant European admixture). Likewise, those Chileans who are of primarily Spanish ancestry are indeed already excluded from the mestizo population (60% uninflated, when inflated it is given 95% including phenotypically White people by virtue of Amerindian distant admixture.)
The following is my concern. As the ethnography of Chile has already been succesfully pointed out, and now the stance of the user has changed to wanting to continue stating 10 million "ethnic Spaniards" in Chile, based on that they are  of primarily or partial Spanish ancestry, then I forward the suggestion of also incoporating all other mestizos (those of partial Spanish ancestry) into the percentage given of "ethnic Spaniards" in all the other Hispanic American countries. Honestly, the fact that any Hispanic country is at all quoted with a percentage for "ethnic Spaniards" is quite ludicrous. There is no defined line as to who is or isn't "ethnic Spanish" in Latin America. There are just those who are phenotypically white, and identify as such, usually belong to a higher class, but their ethnicity remains Mexican, Chilean, Paraguayan, etc. Almost everyone who isn't predominalty Spanish (whatever the proportion in any given Hispanic country) is of visibly partial Spanish ancestry anyway (except perhaps Bolivia, Peru and Guatemala). Al-Andalus 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Ethnic Spanish in Chile

message: It's just getting longer, more confused and less accurate, not to mention embarrassing. Every single sub-section is severely flawed:
* Spaniards: A Southern European and Iberian Mediterranean People
:Spaniards are not "southern European" genetically. They're western European. They're related to Portuguese, Basques, Britons etc., but not so much to Greeks, Sicilians or Balkan peoples.
* Affinities with North African Populations
:The emphasis here should be on the absence of strong North African affinities in the general population because that's what most research shows. And why is the study using p49/TaqI still there when that marker has been proven to be totally inconclusive?
:Also, genetic data on Canary Islanders belongs in that article, not this one.
* Affinities with Northern European and Celtic Populations
:Spaniards don't have "northern European affinities." Rather, it is some northern Europeans (like Celtic Brits) who have southern European affinities owing to ancient northward migrations from Iberia.
* Physical Appearance
:A subjective description that emphasizes "Nordics" does not reflect anthropological reality. And random links to photos of soccer players and an online TV website are not appropriate for this or any other encyclopedia.
The revision I'm proposing to fix this horrible section covers all of the main points in the current version (and uses most of the same sources), only in a more concise, straightforward and accurate way. But since no one will leave it up long enough so that people can read it, I'll put it here for now:
----
:Ancestry
:Spaniards are a homogenous group of Caucasoids who share similar phenotypes throughout the country. In a detailed survey of all regions, anthropologist Carleton Coon noted: "Despite the complex political history of Spain, the living population is basically and almost wholly Mediterranean."  Hence, brunet traits predominate everywhere, though as with many European nations, rates of blondism are slightly elevated in the north.
:Genetically, Spaniards belong to what is sometimes called the "Atlantic zone." Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, which is the most common in western Europe, reaches frequencies of 79% in northern Spain and 66% in the south.  In terms of mtDNA, the most widespread haplogroups, with a combined frequency of about 68%, are H and U,  both also of Paleolithic derivation and typical of Atlantic populations. Accordingly, recent discoveries have pointed to strong affinities between the Iberian peninsula and the Celtic nations of Britain. 
:There seems to be a general consensus that the long Moorish occupation of Spain did not have a significant demographic impact, even in Andalusia, because of cultural differences engendered by the Mediterranean Sea barrier.    One of the better known studies on the subject concludes the following:
:: The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool [which] may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. ... A small NW African genetic contribution in Iberia is also detected with mtDNA, the female counterpart of the Y chromosome. 
:However, some research does suggest a certain North African component in the Iberian gene pool, often in isolated locales where Muslims are known to have taken refuge from the Inquisition.   Though it should be noted that many of the sources holding this position admit an inability to distinguish between recent admixture and prehistoric ancestry shared by Iberians and northwest Africans.  
----
Comments please.
* Thats probably the most accurate and best quality version for the "origins" or "genetic/racial classification" section. I've long studied several of these sources your quoting, both genetic and anthropological, and its fairly conclusive. We need some more feedback but I think it should replace whats currently in place in the article. Epf 09:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ancestry section is not "getting better" 

message: Hello everyone! Well here is my input into this debate (As a Spaniard). I have been reading the discussions on this page. Firstly I would like to point out that Spaniards are a Southern European people (not Western European) except perhaps for Galicians, Basques and Asturianos. Our main heritage is Mediterranean and thus southern European. We are not homogenous at all, Basques, for example, being naturally quite distinct both physically and genetically. Us Canary islanders also tend to be quite distinct as we have a large aboriginal genetic imput (I noticed it is mentioned on the page). This is a reality we accept and dont find offensive. As for the Andalusians, EPF and others may be fans of this character Carlton Coon (sounds like a cowboy) but it is true that there is a visible "moorish air" among many of them and the general Andalusian physical type is quite oriental.  I have lived 2 years in Seville and 6 months in Granada and know the whole region quite well. Whether this is due to the islamic period or to the fact that Southern Spain has been linked to North Africa and to the Eastern Mediterranean for Millenia (since the time Tartessos) I dont know. In any case it is silly to deny the impact of 8 centuries of our history, this was done by Francoist historians (more out of complex than anything else) but whoever claims the "demographic impact of this period was minimal" knows very little of Spain. Al Andalus was for a large part of its existence recipient of immigration from all over the muslim world (including even slavs-see the taifa kingdoms of albarracin). But this debate could go on endlessly I guess. My points are the following:
*Spaniards are NOT a homogenous ethnic group in the way the English or the Germans are.
*Spaniards have no close relationship with British people. Attempts to link Irish to Mediterranean peoples are silly. I have been to Ireland (once and not for long) they are not a Mediterranean people. Also those who link the Spanish to the Irish use the same kind of vague genetic evidence which they deny the validity for regarding other affinities. 
*If you want to define the Spanish racially using the terms employed by Epf I would advise something on the lines of the following: "Spanish/Iberian ethnicity is the product of the migration south of western European peoples from the northern third of the peninsula to the south during the reconquest (Galicians,Asturians,Castillians, Basques and Catalans) these mingled with the southern-European mediterranean populations of southern half of the country. 
*My advice is that references to genetic studies be scrapped all together since none of them are conclusive, many seem to contradict each other, and the only other solution is to include all of them.
*I think the section on with the pictures of the Spanish national footbal team and a link to rtve.es is quite cool. I don't know why it should be criticized. Although the photo of puyol is quite unfortunate.
*Finnally, the "imagination" by pseudo scientisis of a homogenous "Spanish"ethnic group is illogical in a nation which has too many "others". There is no "Spanish" ethnicity in the terms you are attempting to define it. Whoever claims there is does not know my country well enough.
I hope my contribution helped!
--El chicharrero 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics and appearance 

message: I see no one has angrily refuted by description of basques... that must mean something...:-)
As is stated in the Italian people page, "it deserves mention that population genetics is a science quite early in development with conflicting studies and limited testing on only a few sections of human DNA that can not be considered fully conclusive in any shape or form."
Population studies are almost unanimously conflicting and cannot be taken seriously (yet), in my opinion. MiG 25, we are falling to subjectivism and personal opinions because no clear conclusion can be taken from these studies.
I disagree with the new version because it sounds to me like coming from a neonazi website and can be resumed in the following: 
"Spaniards are homogenous, we are one people basques and catalans included, we descend from the celts of Great Britain (???), our blood was never stained by the arabs or any non-aryan people, we are as European as anyone."
Call that balanced if you wish. To me it sounds a bit tendentious. Definitely a tendentious way of selecting population studies to come to such a conclusion. No offense to the writer of the version...
As for his explanation of Spanish physical appearance it goes something like this: Spaniards are brunet/dark on average because they are celts and like the irish. And celts (including the irish) are also dark...
Who talked of an embarassing version of the ancestry secion? please!
Lets get rid of the section...
--Cassius80 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry section debate, part 2

message: Including Latin Americans with "significant" Spanish ancestry greatly inflates pop figures.  Another thing to bear in mind, for historical reasons, it has been normal down the centuries for Latin Americans to exagerate their Spanish ancestry at the expense of others. 210.49.196.39 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflated Numbers 

message: I have made a change based on the new proposed version plus a contribution. The links do not go now. Can someone see to it?
Well user Alf has changed my version in two seconds. I propose a change to the new version with this inclusion:
The Spanish also have strong affinities with other Southern Europeans:
:When focusing in SW Europe, very small (0.1%), non-significant differences were found between Iberians and Italians, in agreement with the large mtDNA homogeneity described in Europe (Simoni et al. 2000a, 2000b; Helgason et al. 2000; see also Richards et al. 2002).
So, why can we not have this new version instead of the horrible one. Maybe user Alf can read tis talk page.
Reasons for the change: 
1. Unbanlanced presentation of facts, in relation to content and form and space devoted to each concept.
2. Personal and subjective opinions, without citations: 
a. North African and Middle Eastern admixture in Spaniards is a controversial and sensitive issue, the thorough islamization of Spain over eight centuries having been, in the past,problematic for Spanish identity.
Who says that it is or was, controversial, problematic or sensitive for Spanish Identity. Who says that it may be wider than was previously believed.
It has always been controversial and is a central issue in Spanish identity. Examples: Basque and Catalan nationalism, French orientalism in Spain etc...
b. A majority of gentic population studies (but not all) agree that the genetic impact on Spaniards of the Al Andalus period is more pronounced in some regions than others and may be wider than was previously believed.
3. Random pictures of football players.
see below
4.Statements like: Another study from the University of Chicago elaborates as to the north-south divide as northern Spaniards also show a degree of similarity with their northern neighbors in France and reveals the extent of "Celtic" contributions to the Spanish population.
What celtic contribution? Those genetic studies point to a indigenous population that was there much before the Celts migrations.
As to the North-South divide The source quoted does not say anything about any such divide.
Look again!
5. As the space devoted to the concept can proof, some kind of obsession with the North African affinities, in spite of clear evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg
Or maybe some people here think that Cavalli-Sforza is an amateur.
Dont know who he is....
These are just examples that reflect the quality of the section right now.
: Could I add that the section starts of mythically with "the thorough Islamization of Spain over eight centuries" Firstly -  by 1248 nearly ALL the peninsula had been reconquered, only the small state of Granada hung on until 1492, that's a little over 5 centuries. In the north large swathes of the country were under Islamic rule for from a few decades to several centuries, and in many of these areas there was barely any direct Islamic influence.  That bring me to the point - that the article seems to imply that "Islamization" equates with mass settlement by North Africans. It didn't. In fact Islamization happened very gradually, through RELIGIOUS CONVERSION - and it was the nobility and wealthy who were most prone to  convert first to escape the disadvantages of dhimmi status.  It in fact took centuries of conversion before Muslims began to match or outnumber Christians -  in the south.  The Islamic conquest of Iberia was achieved with a small army. Even in the south, large Christian populations continued through up to 1248.  And finally, even upon conversion people were aware of distinctions between the tiny Arab elite, the Berbers, and the Iberian converts at the bottom. As for making sense of the seemingly conflicting genetic evidence on the connection of the southerners with North Africa, that should be spelt out from the beginning of this section.  210.49.196.39 02:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in the ancestry section 

message: I think it is important that people in this talk page knows that someone is erasing my comments. I have tried to put them back but they continue to erase them.
There are many other studies that you are not mentioning, and indeed we could flood this site with them all, but you are fogetting a fundamental one, Cavalli-Sforza's, probably the most important authority in genetic research in the world, whose work is considered a standard for geneticists. His map of human genetic diversity has been a milestone in the genetic research of modern human populations, and as of yet, no serious geneticist has questioned his research. His Map of Human Genetic Diversity is especially relevant in this discussion about the global genetic placement of the Spanish people.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg
And why is it so important? Because it does not only come from an authority like that, but also because it presents a global conclusion about the Spanish, not partial conclusions. As I have already said, we should devote the main part of the article to the main issue of the article, and then close it with the marginal issues, devoting the space that we should devote to a main issue and the space that we should devote to a marginal issue. I have already said it several times here. That concept is so simple that I do not understand why some people here still do not understand it themselves. On the other hand, if we continue discussing marginal issues here with partial studies here and there, we will be discussing here till the end of times
In my opinon there is a limited number of studies and we have done a good job collecting most of them. Cavalli Sforza is a great scientist and the only reason I didnt put the map on his list is that I found it a bit simplistic. A map which puts Syrians in a European group, Jordanians in an Asian one and Egyptians in an African group as if they were completely unrelated people cannot help us with the issue at hand. We know Spaniards are European and no one is denying that. Please do not search for confrontation. I will put the map on the list anyways but if you can come up with anything better from Cavalli Sforza please do.--Burgas00 11:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasing comments 

message: The section could be structured like this
1st paragragh: I think everyone agrees that the Spanish are Primarily 1) European and 2) Mediterranean. This should be the 1st paragraph. Perhaps we need more sources on this important general section. I trust u on the cavalli sforza map so we can put it here.
Second paragraph should perhaps deal on whether Spaniards are homogenous. We have to work this one out... It is hard to be neutral on this one. Issue of Basques, North south division, Catalans and Galicians... We could say that: '''
...although genetic differences between Spanish regions do exist (citation x), particularly with regards to the Basque country (citations: e,f,g,h) but also with regards to Andalusia (citations: x,y,z), Catalonia and Galicia, (links a,b,c,d,) these differences should not be exagerated, particularly in the light of mass migrations which occurred during the period of the reconquest. In any case all Iberians are genetically similar and fall into the cluster blablabla (citation x).
3rd paragrapgh On other Affinities we can say something like: Although a majority (but not all: links a,b,c,d) of genetic studies point to a genetic relationship between NW Africa and Iberia due to the centuries of Islamic invasion ((links e,f,g,h,i,j), such a genetic influx should be considered to be relatively minor and not to have altered the basic ethnic makeup of the Spanish people (links x,y,z). +quick sentence about canarians with its link.
Spaniards in general, but particularly Northern and North Western Spaniards, are also related to the celtic-speaking people's of the Atlantic rim of Western Europe.(links: a couple I think)
I think it is a goog structure. You can elaborate on that. I support it.
I also agree, Burgas has pushed for an agreement and this version is very neutral. I agree that perhaps more sources are needed for the 1st paragragh. --Cassius80 10:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has somebody got access to Cavilla-Sforza - perhaps an appropriate quote of where Iberians fit in European - Mediterranean circumstance.  I'm looking for some study, but this isn't an area of knowledge for me!
I do not have time to look into things in detail, but the article is looking much better now. In the first paragraph I would still mention the affinities with the Italian peoples, because it is an important piece of information and to make this article consistent with the Italian one. It could be introduced presenting the Spanish as a West-Mediterranean population with the affinities mentioned.
1st paragraph: Please add stuff if u want. Cant think of anything else to say..
Spaniards are a caucasoid, European and predominantly Mediterranean people originating in South-Western Europe(10). Both genetically and phenotypically, they are similar to other Southern European populations such as the Portuguese and Italians(5,16).
I still think one more source giving a general description would be good. Do you think this section is too short? Should we cut out the physical appearance bit as has been done on the Italian people page? Sources 5 and 10 were the only ones i found relevant to the paragragh.--Burgas00 15:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus version of ancestry section 

message: OK this is it. I agree with this version... It is definitely as short as one can get it. Now I guess we should insert the sources... 
Spaniards are a caucasoid, European and predominantly Mediterranean people originating in South-Western Europe.10. Both genetically and phenotypically, they are similar to other Southern European populations such as the Portuguese and Italians516.
Genetic differences between Spanish regions do exist45, particularly with regards to the Basque country123 but also with regards to Andalusia and Catalonia 5789 aswell as Galicia4. However, these differences should not be exagerated, particularly in the light of mass migrations which occurred during the period of the reconquest4. In any case all Iberians are genetically similar and fall into the cluster of European based genetic diversity.13 1415.
Although a majority (but not all:11 14) of genetic studies point to a genetic relationship between NW Africa and (particularly southern) Iberia due to the centuries of Islamic invasion 457891015, such a genetic influx should be considered to be relatively minor and not to have altered the basic ethnic makeup of the Spanish people10. This is not the case of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, whose gene pool is halfway between its putative iberian and north african parents.6
Some studies also link (particularly Northern and Northwestern) Spaniards to the celtic-speaking people's of the Atlantic rim of Western Europe.412
Perhaps we should include the disclaimer on genetic studies stating that none of them are conclusive...--Cassius80 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus version of ancestry section Part II 

message: Well, somebody pasted the new version in the article and I basically agree with it. It is way much shorter and looks more reasonable. Still it could be beautified a little bit. I insist that someone who can do it paste the Cavallí-Sforza´s map. It is meaningful and also beautifies that part of the article that looks a bit arid without it.
I agree with it also. I have no problem with the Cavalli Sforza map. Go ahead, I dont think anyone else will be against pasting it on..--Burgas00 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final concensus version 

message: I think it is up to us Spaniards in this debate to decide, rather than race obsessed Epf who claims he can tell a Spaniard from a Portuguese just by looking at him while never having been to either country.
I vote YES--Cassius80 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we all agree that Gitanos are "Spanish people", that Lola Flores was Spanish and that (unfortunately) so is Isabel Pantoja???

message: You are right,Epf has handled this page and other pages in a very professional and informed way. But on this particular issue he is wrong... The question is how do we reinsert reference to Roma... I am going to propose a new version to see if we all agree.
Spain is home to a large number of Spanish-Roma (Gitanos). Roma are a formerly-nomadic group, originating in Northern India, which spread across Western Asia, North Africa and Europe, reaching Spain in the 15th century. Gitanos, for a number of historical and cultural reasons are not considered a separate or "foreign" population in Spain, but a distinct sub-ethnicity which overlaps the wider Spanish ethnicity. This is not generally the case in other European countries. There are no official statistics on the Gitano population in Spain. Estimates range from 600 000 to 800 000, making Spain, together with Romania and Bulgaria, home to one of the largest Roma communities in Europe. Over 40% of Gitanos live in the region of Andalusia, where they have traditionally enjoyed a higher degree of integration than in the rest of the country. A number of Spanish Gitanos also live in Southern France, especially in the region of Perpignan. Gitanos play a central role in Spanish folklore, music and culture aswell as in Andalusian identity itself. On the other hand, they also suffer the mistrust and rejection of a large part of the wider Spanish population.
Please discuss:
changes look good cassius...
I dont consider myself wrong Burgas, but, we need to reach a consensus. I like what you have above, but something like the EU report should be used as a reference for numerical estimates, even if it is from 2002-2003. As long as something states how Gitanos are a disinct "sub-ethnicity" in Spain with non-Iberian/non-Euorpean roots and a distinct (and proud) culture/traditions and language which distinguishes them somewhat from the native Iberian Catalans, Galicians, Castilians, etc. Them being in Spain for a signficant period, as would also be the case for Jewish peoples that still remain there, definitely distinguishes them from more recent immigrant and immigrant-descended groups. I do not think the comment on Spain having a high immigration rate (which was there originally) should be included as it really has nothing to do with this article or ethnic Spanish people. Epf 05:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Gitanos 

message: Well this whole article I have a problem with because for one Spaniards like the British(recently found out to some) are a mixture of Celtic ,Nordic and Meddteiterran.  You can even see this information stated on the CIA world fact book for Spain. So i dont get why this article is saying things that are just wayyyy out there for what I normally heard of the Spanish.  If the Spanish werent Nordic why would there be so many blondes in Spain.  Most Spaniards are light skinned and resemble more the British then anything else. Unlike Sicilians. Also  what I have found is that there acutally very little Moorish influence in spain unlike what most think today. The article also states clearly that Spaniards and North Africans are VERY different. So this article seems almost completely worthless and should be greatly edited. I found something very simular with the British. Again proving these two articles need to be changed very much. (XGustaX 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole article is pretty much wrong I think something should be done about it. 

message: First of all, preroman inhabitants of Spain were not only Iberians. In the North and Northwestern regions (including most of Castile) the population was of indoeuropean atlantic origin. The celtiberian tribes from the Meseta were ethnic celts with Iberian cultural features. Galicia and Asturias show a strong Celtic (or pre Celtic, it´s been discussed) atlantic ethnicity. The claim that the former inhabitants of Spain were Mediterraneans before the Roman conquest is untrue for most of the north and western regions. Most of the preroman names of villages are western indoeuropean (wether Celtic or not). Iberians, as a tribe, set their realm in Eastern parts of the countries.
And, indeed, there is Nordic influence (meaning Germanic, not Atlantic) coming from Visigoths, Suebi, etc.
The most related peoples (Portuguese and Italians) show the same mix heritage of Mediterranean, Germanic and Celts (north Italy was populated by Gauls), and Ligures are a nowadays claimed by some people to be the origins of Astures. So,the evident Italian and Spanish similarity does not come just from the Roman times. 
Nowadays, there are two facts to consider about Spanish ethnicity:
#it is very difficult to tell apart the origins of the people of the cities, because of the mixtures occured in last century due to migrations
#in rural areas, the difference between Northwest, East and South is avowed. (I am astonished at the claim that Catalans are fairer and taller, in fact, in the north they are regarded  as the typical mediterranean people, quite short).
Xareu bs 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree. I´d only like only point out that by Nordic I was meaning non-Med, and that I know that Greeks, Latin (and other isolated languages such as Albanian), etc, are all indoeuropean, but Iberians weren´t. About Lebanon, it´s a quite interesting fact. There are said to be many descendants of Crusaders.--Xareu bs 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not historically accurate