Talk:Spaniards/Archive 2

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

message: I came across this article. What does it mean? Are the Spanish, or the Iberians, the "most" European in terms of ancestry: haplogroup R1b
See also: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050
Well, check out the sources on the ancestry section and past discussions and come to your own conclusion.:-) --Burgas00 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those unfamiliar with HCC's argument style should now readThis
--Burgas00 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halogroup R1b, what does it mean? 

message: I have made a fundamental addition to the ancestry section that cannot be ignored in the light of the evidence available. I have taken this part from this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29#Connection_with_the_peopling_of_Europe
HCC
Have you not noticed there are 17 different sources and we have not gone into the arguments given by any of them? Or if you want we can return to a version where the ancestry section takes up 95% of the article. Please leave the section alone. It is fine as it is.--Burgas00 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition 

message: This section is also very wrong. To say that the Iberians arrived in Spain 4000 years ago and that they were the earliest settlers of the country etc. is again 19th century history. I think we soould look for a wording to introduce this section that takes into account the presence of settlers much before that, as per the evidence available and that I have presented. HCC.
Well you are right here. But, it depends on the definition of Iberians. Iberians can mean Iberians (the group which settled eastern Spain 4000 years ago) or it can mean all pre-indoeuropean peoples which settled the peninsula (including basques, Tartessians, Iberians etc...) In any case the history of preindoeuropean Iberia is quite mysterious...--Burgas00 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: Burgass, those links are not redundant. They are fundamental. In some cases there are up to 7 links about one aspect and you think these are redundant?
I consider them redundant in the sense that we explain the origin of R1b in the section itself. If we hadnt, they would be, as you say, fundamental.  When there are, as you mention, 7 links for one aspect, it is to support statements which are controversial (e.g. Basques have gentic differences with Castilians). The issue of R1b is not controversial (u wont find editors attempting to deny its existence) and it is explained and highlighted well enough in the section.
As for other edits, as I have explained:
*Alpujarras is in Southern Spain, Alicante or Cartagena is in South East.
*Adding "Maybe, a maximum of perhaps" 7% to a statement we don't like is not serious. Actually the maximum established by that same study is 14%. Also both attempts to edit this paragraph have led to problems with syntax.
*I agree with Xingtao's recent edits which were more focused on giving coherence to the section and inserting HCCs sources throughout, rather than attempting to highlight or downplay one particular issue.
However what made me --Burgas00 07:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly discussion about haplogroups. 

message: Here you have this link, where you can find updated information for the background section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania
I have copied and pasted this part:
The Iberian peninsula has long been inhabited, first by Early Hominids, such as Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo antecessor. In the Paleolithic period, the Neanderthal enters Iberia and there will eventually take refuge from the advancing migrations of Modern Humans. In the 40th millennium BC, during the Upper Paleolithic and the Last Ice Age, the first large settlement of Europe by Modern Humans occurs, these where Nomadic Hunter-gathereres coming from the of the Steppes of Central Asia, characterized by the M173 mutation in the Y chromosome, defining them as an Haplogroup R population. When the Last ice age reached its maximum extent, during the 30th millennium BC, these modern humans took refuge in Southern Europe, namely in Iberia, coming from Southern France. Here, this genetically homogeneous population (characterized by the M173 mutation in the Y chromosome), will develop the M343 mutation, giving rise to the R1b Haplogroup, still dominant in modern Portuguese and Spanish populations. In the millennia after this event, the Neanderthal became extinct and local Modern human cultures thrived, producing Pre-historic Art such as the one in L'Arbreda Cave and in the Valley of Foz Côa.
HCC.
I don't want to seem that I am constantly disagreeing with you. But isnt this all a bit too prehistoric? 40 000 years ago is a long time ago.... --Burgas00 09:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: Was incorrect please review this article for more details that say they found little link with the moors and Northern Africans. This is the article, which clearly states book and genetical studies done proves it: http://racialreality.sitesled.com/spaniards.htmlXGustaX 
I have also found this source also: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/08/iberian-y-chromosomes.html
[[XGustaX 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much of the information... 

message: User XGustaX has been recently vandalising this article. Cutting its size in half, erasing dozens of sources etc..He is also trying to impose his peculiar ideas on this article. Could other wikipedians please revert the article to the last version before his edits? He seems to be quite persistent and has gone as far as reporting me for reverting his vandalism. Perhaps this page needs some protection once his vandalism has been reverted.
His IP address on the 25th of June is 24.60.161.63 and he is using it to break the 3RR.
Thankyou--Burgas00 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Gusta 

message: What a mess. I don't really know whats going on, but I've protected the article, having reverted to the longer version with the refs. I can see no reason why that was all removed. Please discuss here; please also make an effort to bring in others who might know better William M. Connolley 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -) Nice try XGustaX. Unfortunately you have been discovered by your inability to distinguish between the words Accuse and Excuse. See this by user XGustaX and this by his new impersonation: IP user:17.255.240.86.
XGustaX please take your vandalism and sockpuppets somewhere else. And learn to speak English while you are at it.--Burgas00 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:XGustaX has a history of using sockpuppets such as User:24.60.161.63. He also removes vandalism warning from his user page and connected sockpuppets (example 1, example 2). He has now not only removed vital information om this article, but also removed comments by other users in the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, and accuses Burgas of deleting text from Gusta's page, what as you can see taking a look at the history that is not true. If such behaviour continues, the user might be facing a longer blocks that those he had already experienced.
Mariano you are mistake he has deleted THIS VERY TALK page and you can check the history he deleted my section and just completly dismissed my sources without even talking to him. You are very mistaken I never said he vandalize my talk page but this one. Now Why would I vandalize my own report to an admin about another user if I wanted to them to take them seriously. (XGustaX 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Who wants this unprotected? William M. Connolley 07:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for unprotected pages in general. Mariano(t/c) 09:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, That's What I requested User:William M. Connolley semiprotection. *~Daniel~* 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, It's too long for this page's protection because some of them wants to mention more informations, and perhaps there is some spelling mistake. That's the reason this page should not be protected anymore. *~Daniel~*  ☎ 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Hello, just wanted to contribute to the article by posting another source for the ancestory section. Im not sure if it is already refrenced but i dont think it is so il post it here and allow you all to determineif you should add it.
http://www.upf.edu/cexs/recerca/bioevo/2000BioEvo/BE2000-Bosch-STRs-EJHG.pdf
Thats a great source that further emphasizes the genetic make up of Iberians and Africans. It shows that there is a large diffrence between the two civilizations. Allthough largely concerned with the North Africans as you can tell by the title, it does draw on comparisons of the Africans to the Iberians so i would say it is a credible source to use for the spaniards page.
Yes and one more here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16201138&dopt=Abstract
------------
Those sources do not say anything new. It has already been discussed. Here you have a global view of the Spanish genetic make up:
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF
As you can see the genetic marker E3b, which is typical of North Africa and of the Berbers (you can see it in the pie for North Africa), represents about 10% of the Spanish population. This genetic marker comes from the Neolithic invasions and from the Muslim invasion in Spain. So, there is no doubt about the relationship between Spain and North Africa and I think no one is questioning that here. Still, see how this marker is also present all across Europe, probably from Neolithic invasions, and with higher occurences in other European countries.
On the other hand, right now, the typical haplogroup for Spain is R1b and more than 80% per cent of Spaniards belong to Paleolithic European haplogoups (haplogroups R1b, R1a and I), which happens to be as well the European average, while less than 20% come from Neolithic and more recent invasions.
It has already been said, but a Y-Chromosome Haplogroupg is a genetic marker that is passed down from father to son all the way down and is the best way available at the moment in genetics to know about the ancestry of population groups.
----
Yes but we must not forget Mtdna as well, which is transmitted mother to daughter and is equally important.
Can we have some source which provides exact percentages for different haplogroups (both Mtdna and Y-chromosomes) in Iberia and the rest of Europe? Also these pies do not really give any reference to the size, location of the population sample... I think one is needed. 
I know that R1b is most common among the Basques. This corresponds with historical reality since R1b is of paleolithic pre-indoeuropean origin and so is the basque language. It is believed that at one point, the entire population of western europe spoke a proto basque language. 
--Burgas00 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Source 

message: The Spanish are one of the most characteristically European nations in Europe, this is one interesting conclusion of new genetic anthropology: 
1. It is easy to see and understand:
a. 68% of Spaniards are Haplogroup r1b (in some areas almost 90%) and 12% Haplogroup I (Y-DNA), which equals 80%.
2. What is so interesting about these two genetic families:
a. They occur overwhelmingly and almost exclusively in Europe.
b. Haplogroup R1a is also very frequent accross Europe, but it is even more frequent in Asia, with about 500 million Indians belonging to this genetic family.
As has already been said, see it on pages 1 and 2. For female genetic markers you can see page 5.
Of course you need to be able to read a map: 
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
Very few European nations can claim to be as characteristically or exclusively European as the Spanish, from a genetic point of view. Now, does the article reflect this fact?. Of course not. The article right now is of extremely poor quality because it is clearly ignoring the main and most important facts, while for some reason tries to deal with minority non-European genetic relationships , while the other European people´s articles show no interest in this fact and they happen to have many more genetic relationships with non-European peoples than the Spanish.
And I would like to say someting else:
I see a lot of people argueing about the reasons for genetic relationships:
1. Genetics does not say why things are like that, but it says what things are like.
a. It does not say why most Eastern Europeans and many Northern Eurpeans belong to the same genetic family R1a as most Indians or Pakistanis, but it certainly says that they do.
b. It does not say why most Spaniards and Western Eurpeans belong to the same genetic family R1b, but it certainly says that they do.
So, the article is very far from being using the global genetic information avalilable nowadays in an honest or scholarly way.
In short, we need an entire different version for this article.
So, I propose a new version for this article, especially in relation to the genetic section.  PP.----------------
I disagree. Although I agree with you that the R1b should be mentioned at beginning of the section rahther than the end. However, the article clearly explains that Iberians are a European Mediterranean people. It briefly goes into the question of whether the 700 years of islamic history affected the gene pool of modern Spaniards. Genetic studies conclude that it did, but not drastically, as can be clearly demonstrated by a wide range of genetic markers shared with north africans but not with any other european population- at least to that degree. It also briefly goes into the other question of whether Iberians are genetically homogenous. Results show that there is a limited geographic heterogeny.
I assume you know something about population genetics. You therefore must understand that Haplogroups are simply genetic markers for past population movements which occured in some cases 10s of thousands of years ago. They do not denote a "European" or "Middle Eastern" or "Berber" primeval "race" or even genetic family. The example you have given of R1a is a good example of that. A shared haplogrooup by itself is simply a clue on what can be a very ancient prehistoric population movements which tells us very little on the genetic make up of a present day individual. Germans are not 40% genetically Pakistani because of a shared R1a haplogroup. It does not work that way. 
An analysis is not needed of haplogroups and their origins for each "people" article so as to trace the many possible routes which each of their ancestors have followed from Africa. 
I do agree that the section could be more succint.
--83.175.232.170 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reflects just traditional superstitions and bias.