Talk:Spaniards/Archive 3

message: I agree basically with what you say, José, and I agree also with Pinball. I have been insisting on the same things long ago. I am glad that other people begin to see the obvious. It is not about negating anything, it is about being coherent gobally with modern genetic research, and the article right now, especially the genetic section, is not good enough and should be changed, not scrapped. The facts about some lineages like R1b and the Paleolithic contribution is so important in the case of the Spanish that ignoring it or underplaying it can only be the result or either ignorance or bias aand that is not in contradiction with elaborating also on the other minority influences in Spain. It is obviously not about being more or less European than the others, that would be ridiculous, it is just about being coherent with what we see in genetic research. 
And about Burgass´ comments, I am sorry, I do not like to use ad hominem arguments, but he is too suspicious. This guy at the beginning did all he could do to negate R1b or even mention it in the article. My conversations with him are archived. Then even earlier he was behind a version that devoted two thirds of the genetic section to elaborate on the North African influence. So I say enough to Burgass, do not trust him. HCC.
---
HCC, you are being unfair. I havent even taken part in these discussions, I only intervened to say that accusing the current version of "manipulation" was going too far. 
You have to look at the past discussions and history of the article. I have not done anything in this article except mediating and trying to come to consensus versions. If ever the north african section was big, it was the temporary result of controversy and different wikipedians adding new sources. It certainly wasnt because of me.
It is true that we had an argument at one point, but I seem to remember we managed to come to an agreement and mantained cordiality. 
I also think that Jose's post is very insightful and perhaps could be used as a basis for a new consensuated version of the ancestry section (even though the current one was is pretty good in my opinion).
In any case, in a few days I will write out a first version of a new ancestry section and post it on the talk page so that you can all give me feedback and your opinions. What shall we do about that huge list of genetic studies? Should we erase them or find a way of mantaining them? 
--Burgas00 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of ancestry section I 

message: Un saludo a todos quería avisarles, que hace tiempo hice un artículo en la wikipedia en español llamado es:Español (etnia) (en pocos momento puede que esté borrada),  basada en este artículo y se estableció una votación de borrado alegando que es "fuente primaria"e incluso de racismo (como si dijese que el pueblo español es superior o inferior y ni siquiera se menciona en ningún momento que fuera una raza) en fin pareciera que tuvieran demasiado sensibilizado con el racismo de esa wiki, cuando en la misma infame wiki en español (manejada por una autentica mafia que dice lo que es bueno y lo que no; alejada totalmente de la realidad) me borraron  un articulo sobre el racismo de los medios de comunicación. Resulta realmente paradójico que gente que acusan de racismo, censuran artículos sobre el racismo o cualquier tema de etnicidad, solo prueba un botón en el articulo de es:chile se ha perdido un montón de tiempo en discuciones interminables para establecer si la mayor parte de la población chilena es blanca o mestiza (fijense quienes son los verdaderos racistas). En resumen la wikipedia en español es un manicomio, obligando a los hispanohablantes a leer la wikipedia en inglés para estar informados, y en el que pueden leer artículos interesantes como Spanish people. Saludos. --K4zem 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ¿Entonces que son los europeos?, ¿no son etnias no son nada?, a parecer sólo hay etnias indígenas, y etnias en África y Asia. Lo que veo es que hay una especie de tabú o más bien un eurocentrismo. Los europeos que sus formas de vida y cultura no quieren que se estudie etnicamente. Es una especie de doble moral, es lo mismo que el apelativo tribu hay tribus africanas e indigenas americanas, pero tribus europeas solo en la antigüedad. Se han empezado a crear articulos por etnología por país en la wiki española, a ver si tambien no la borran, alegando los oligarcas de alla que es racismo.--K4zem 10:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Pues yo fui de los que votó a favor de eliminar el artículo de etnia española en la wikipedia en castellano y básicamente porque si estudias el concepto de etnia te das cuenta que no existe, primero de todo porque los españoles no tenemos concepto de etnia. Luego no existe una raza española, la única diferencia con otras personas como italianos o portugueses es el idioma: si un italiano se viene a España sus hijos serán españoles, y viceversa. Luego está el tema de las cifras, que parece que son mayores cuanto más blanco sea el país de Hispanoamérica, así Argentina es el primero en etnia española, lo cual me parece bastante sospechoso de racismo.
Los ingleses, como buenos germánicos, se han caracterizado siempre por sus estudios de etnias, razas y pueblos (véase Darwin), por la exclusión social y el racismo. Muchas de las ideas inglesas fueron explotadas en Sudáfrica, Estados Unidos y en la Alemania Nazi. A diferencia de la tradición germánica, en la latina no se han desarrollado estos estudios raciales, que a menudo son racistas, y por eso no son habituales ni hay tradición.
Es cierto que hay etnias, no se pueden obviar, pero no todos los países tienen etnias diferenciadas, ni grupos sociales con conciencia propia. Los gitanos sí que son una etnia, pero no los españoles o los catalanes (que también está el artículo de la etnia catalana), por tanto creo que este artículo no tiene ningún fundamento y no tendría que estar ni en la enciclopedia en castellano, ni en la inglesa. Ah, y si alguien se anima que traduzca la conversación esta al inglés para que se enteren ellos. --Hinzel 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ¿Etnia española?

message: Here you have yet another GLOBAL study for Europeans and Spaniards. Again, the interesting fact about Spaniards is that they show one of the highest proportions of Paleolithic European genes (they are called Basque genes in this piece of research), while, surprisingly, the gene flow from Northern Africa and the Near East is smaller than in most of Europe (Smaller does not mean that there is none, of course, and all these influences in Europe come mainly and probably from the Neolithic, when people could not write to record history). The article is long, but if you cannot find these points, tell me and I will help you. 
GLOBAL studies made by experts is what we need, as I have said one hundred times. To try and use individual studies without looking at the big picture in genetics is manipulation ( Shrewd or devious management of information, especially for one's own advantage or point of view). I hope that you already understood it and we can write a rigorous and scientific article, not just a bunch of superstition and stereotypes.
See here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361  
HCC.
Thanks HCC. Could you find some info on haplogroup H? It is of Mesolithic origin right? What was the paleolithic Mtdna MtDNA haplogroup then? Sorry Im taking a bit longer than expected. I am abroad right now.
Yes please tell me where I can find them.
Btw I have found this article which suggests a post neolithic diffusion of E and J in Sicily and Iberia. It is also quite long. Have a look at the figures. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965
What do you think of structuring the section in 3 parts: paleolithic, neolithic and post neolithic influences?
--Burgas00 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Burgass' new version 

message: Well, here I have my proposal for a new version of the genetic section. It should be pointed out that we are talking here of a genetic section. From the point of view of culture, language and religion, the Spanish are a European Mediterranean and Latin people, but this aspect belongs in the cultural placement of the Spanish, which is so important or even more than the genetic aspect, but it should be elaborated outside the genteic section. But now let us go step by step and concentrate on the genetic section. I think that this version is most rigorous with the genetic placement of the Spanish, according to the global genetic evidence available:
The preponderance of European Paleolithic Haplogroups in Spanish men indicates that they may be descended primarily from the earliest paleolithic peoples thought to have colonised Iberia and the rest of Western Europe. There are thought to have been three separated pockets of human habitation in Europe during the last major glaciation (the end of the Paleolithic and the Pleistocene), on the Iberian peninsula, in the Balkans and in the Caucuses. The Y chromosome haplogroups from these populations are thought to correspond to R1b (Iberian or Basque), I (Balkans) and R1a (Caucusus). These three haplogroups occur all over Europe, but their frequencies are not spread uniformly, R1b occuring most often in Iberia and Western Europe, as is evident in Haplogroup maps: 
More recent Neolithic and historic peoples have also contributed to the Spanish genetic pool, from Neolithic agriculturalists to Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Visigoths, Arabs and Berbers, but their contributions seem to have been limited, as can been seen not only in Haplogroup maps, but also in global studies that take into account more genetic loci: 
Veritas et Severitas 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version proposal. 

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

message: Please,see &   --Xareu bs 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British celts and Spanish northern people 

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

message: It is difficult to say what a country is. Some use it for the sovereign state they live in, some others for what is sometimes called a 'subnational entity'. Both are acceptable, IMO. But it's usually been clear that an ethnic group is not the same as a sovereign state. Actually, we all know that few countries in the world can be seen as almost of one single ethnic group. Iceland, perhaps. But Spain?
Spanish people we are an ethnic group, just as other group of people with some similar appearence and roots.
At first, as Spanish I am I would like to say that it's not correct to mix the spanish ethnia with south americans (note that a lot of people from Argentina are procedent from italia, poland,  and some eastern european countries.  Also we¡re very different, just compare a pic of any spanish (like Antonio Banderas) with any southamerican (like...Evo morales) you would see that the colour of skin is very different, and also are the forms of faces , etc.
First, nobody knows exactly which is the birth date of Spain: 1479?, 1492?, 1512?, 1516?, 1707?, 1714?, 1978? But one thing is sure. Several 'ethnic groups' lived "together" in the Iberian peninsula and several 'ethnic groups' still do now. Spain may not be as heterogeneous as India, but it definitely isn't a single ethnic group, and the estado de las autonomías system is clearly not due to a unitary vision of the country. We know that there are several languages spoken in Spain, and that is a powerful factor of differentiation. But even those who speak the same language feel factors of differentiation that are not simply territorial or administrative. Castilians, Andalusians and people from the Canary Islands may speak the same language and feel nationally Spaniards, but they see themselves as belonging to different ethnic groups for a number of legitimate reasons. Spanish gypsies have clearly and traditionally been regarded as a distinct ethnic group within Spain since the 15th century, even if they don't speak their own language any more. Spaniards are the citizens of Spain: a population. With many things in common, of course, but not a single distinct ethnic group. Why Spaniards and Portuguese then as different ethnic groups? We all know that Galicians are much more related to northern Portuguese than to, say, Catalans. I really think this article should change many a thing and be more accurate, because this is not quite scientific or objective. Actually, it's not quite serious.
SPAIN WAS FOUNDED IN 1479, with the marriage of the Catholic Monarchs (Los Reyes católicos) and since then, it began the conquest of some parts on the world, forming the Spanish Empire.
This makes no sense. Pick Antonio Banderas! and Iñaki Urdangarin...they do not seem from the same country. Silly argumentations like this shouldn´t be taken serioulsy. If you chose individual by individual, you may find any kind of Spaniard, from a Swedish style to a Moroccan fashion.
first of all: Spaniards are not an ethnic group,since, as everyone is aware of, there are many regional differences, showing the many origins of the current population. And talking about the colour of Evo Morales´ skin (who is an indian, by the way, not a criollo) is plain racism. There is no Spanish ethnic group, and even you may doubt that there is a Spanish people as a single folk. Other countries, like Portugal, are not an ethnic unit, but they are a people, a gens. This is what we must talk about. If anyone is darker of fairer, well, it must be water under the bridge.--Xareu bs 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spaniards an ethnic group?

message: I will start with some quotations from Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles (In the US for sale from December under Saxons, Vikings and Celts):
The maps and the data in the Scotland paper that you can see in the discussions above have been taken from pages 290 and 292 in the book.
The book is full of interesting stuff and anyone interested should read it. Anyway, just some interesting quotations:
Page 280.
...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.
Pages 281-82.
The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.
The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.
Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and Euroepean Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.
Page 283.
Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles. 
From Origins of Britons, by Oppenheimer you have the following sample.
The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language....Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.
Similar conclusions in Deep ancestry, by Spencer Wells.
Note that the Neolithic influence is now thought to have come also from Iberia by these authors.
The difference is the following:
1. Both Sykes and Oppenheimer see different migrations coming from Iberia, but Sykes thinks that the bulk of the population came to the British Isles in the Neolithic while Oppenheimer thinks that alhough there was a significant one during the Neolithic, most people descend from earlier immigration from Iberia during the Mesolithic.
2. Spencer Wells and the National Geographic Genographic project come to the same conclusions, and they seem to be closer to Sykes' theory.
3. Another difference is that while Oppenheimer has used data from previous genetic studies, Sykes has used those but also his own, more than 10.000 samples taken from all over the British Isles along with his team over a period of 10 years. 
For anyone interested they should read the books. They can also type in Google: Atlantic Modal Haplotype. They can find lots of information there too. 
Archaeology:
Archaeology is overlapping with these genetic findings too. Just see Atlantic Europe where you can find examples like the European Megalithic Culture and the Atlantic Bronze Age. This issue is also covered in an recent book: Facing the Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples, 8000 BC to AD 1500, Barry Cunliffe, OUP 2001.
In short, the only archaeological or historic and genetic findings that are overlapping clearly in relation to a genetic population group that is dominant both in the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles, are those related to Atlantic Europe. 
By the way, this genetic population group is the largest one both in Portugal and Spain, where it averages 60+-70+% depending on the sources, peaking in the Basque country, with about 90-95% depending again on the sources. In the British Isles the average is about the same, with Ireland showing the highest percentage, about 90% (in some places in the west close to 100%). In England it is about 64%-70% depending again on the sources. All this information is equally valid for both the Spanish and the Portuguese  articles. Veritas et Severitas 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Atlantic Issue 

message: Again some anonimous user deletes verifiable information. I think I know who is hiding behind that mask. In any case there it is. Veritas et Severitas 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly sad behaviour. Some admin should take care of it. --Ravenloft 10:47 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Who??? not me,I assure you !!!!--Burgas00 15:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonimous user deleting verifiable information again and the same information. 

message: An anonimous user continues erasing information and making changes without discussion. Watch out for him. Veritas et Severitas 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen your edits, you are certainly not neutral. Alun 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Burgass has now supported one version with some comments in the historic section. I am not going to make any changes myself. Still I would like to say something for consideration:
1. Now the theory that Iberians came from outside of Spain is not main theory. They are believed mainly (not exclusively of course) an aboriginal population influenced by Phoenician and Greek culture.
2. The genetic evidence points mainly in this direction.
2.a. Let us take the following example:
The genetic markers known as R1b are usually linked to Celts. But that is obviously wrong. It comes from a much older population.
1. Basques have nothing to do with Celts and we all know that they have the highest or among the highest proportion of R1b.
2. Catalans have nothing to do with Celtic culture either. In fact they were part of the so-called Iberian culture. See here:
http://arkeotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
As people can see Catalonia was an area occupied by different tribes like the Lacetanos, Indiketas, etc that are considered Iberians, not Celts.
Well, Catalans have also one of the highest proportions of R1b in Europe, even higher than that among Scots. According to this source exactly 79,2%. See: 
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/TBL1
So, genetic evidence points clearly that the bulk of the population in both Iberian and not Iberian areas of the Iberian Peninsula is mainly aboriginal.
As to the genetic section, I am not going to make changes personally either. Still, said population geneticists speak clearly of this influence in relation to Iberia and the British Isles. Oppenheimer is even able to date different migrations from Iberia into the British Isles, both in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, and taking into account R1b subgroups, Mitocondrial DNA and even I haplogroup subgroups that occur mainly in Iberia. But anyway, I see that some people here and in other places (interestingly the same people) seem to have some kind of problem with what those population geneticists state in their books. Veritas et Severitas 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical background section 

message: Watch out for him. I have already reported this user here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#anon_user_conduct
Veritas et Severitas 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon user conduct 

message: epf, many anthropoligists have linked the people of wales, cornwall and even people living in parts of scotland and ireland to the people of iberia (usually the basques).
The roman general tacitus linked the Silures, a tribe of south wales to the people of iberia for their dark complexions and curly dark hair, this is even in oppenheimers new book. Many victorian and past aswell as modern anthropoligists have linked the peoples of certain regions where r1b is high (though not all such as central ireland) to the peoples of iberia often without the knowledge of a genetic link (in the case of victorian and other times).
I'm not saying all the high r1b percentages found in the british isles correlates with a more iberian look (eg the people of central ireland are 90% r1b yet almost entirely have black hair blue eyes and very pale skin and occasionally red hair).
I'm sure the paleolithic and pre younger dryas migrants from spain may have somehow adapted to the harsh conditions of the british isles and lack of sunlight wheras the mesolithic and later migrants were probably less likely too.) there are some mutations on r1b that are exclusive to the british isles and there are some mutations on r1b the both the british isles and spain share. Oppenheimer shows the data for this. It would be interresting to asses anthropological appearance to r1b mutations.
Anyway back to the point, you claim the data is not new, INCORRECT, Brian Sykes uses his own Data never before published or used (he collects 10,000 dna samples from across the british isles) so you are wrong about your earlier statement.
Finally, most of the migration from iberia to spain oppenheimer claims happened in the paleolithic while sykes claims it happened mainly in the neolithic. --Globe01 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear anon (aka epf) 

message: Who but some ignoramuses could confuse the two?  Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz are Spaniards, not like any Mexican.  So please, be correct in your political correctness.  Thank you.  Les Invisibles 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mestizos are people who are part Spanish and part Indian. So, this is like saying "Mulattos are not Negroes". or for that matter "Mulattos are not Caucasians". Gringo300 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Mestizos are related to Spaniards, because Spaniards are a type of mestizo. Unlike white people and other racially pure stocks, Spaniards have not disfavored racial admixture.  Spaniards are a sort of mestizo themselves with Arabic racial elements taking predominance over Mediterranean elements.  For the Spaniard more mixed blood doesn't matter when you're already a miscegenated people.  This is all explained here white people--DarkTea 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Mestizos are not "related to Spaniards, because Spaniards are a type of Mestizo"..it'd be the other way around. Spaniards, and especially those who went to the New World were very European. People in every 'group' have different elements within them...other European peoples may have not been mixed 'as much', but that doesn't make them less White. Even Queen Elizabeth II has non-white ancestry...and she is the very picture of "Europeaness". The 'Arabic' blood may be in many regions gene pools, but not all. Many Spaniards are Whiter than other 'White' people...bottom line is everyone is mixed...humans have beem mixing and mingling blood for thousands of years, and before that we all came from the same place. We can read other sources to figure this out. Thank You. --C.Kent87 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mestizos are NOT Spaniards! 

message: In the section Languages of the ethnicity box, the link Spanish languages and dialects should direct to Languages of Spain and not to Names given to the Spanish language. I tried to change the template, but couldn't (is it protected?). Can someone do it? Thanks! The Ogre 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ravenloft 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Spanish ethnicity - Languages of Spain 

message: Haplogroup R1b and its impact and frequency is inluded in this article, R1a and I1a should also be included and discussed.
Manic Hispanic 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea of creating that specific population genetics article. --  · Ravenloft ·  · (talk) ·  21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Burgas00, take a look at the Ancestry sections of the Irish people, English people or Scottish people articles and you'll see you're wrong. Such articles do exist and they're part of an increasing trend in Wikipedia. Even more, I think it could be a good idea to do a Population Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula article, where the genetics and ancestry secions of Spanish people, Portuguese people, Basque people, Catalan people and other related articles  could be compiled and go much more deeper than in the generic population ones. --  · Ravenloft ·  · (talk) ·  14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including R1a and I1a haplogroups. 

message: perhaps we should create one giant artice with links to in depth genetic articles on all the worlds continents and within that all the worlds political boundaries.
i,e there is already population genetics of the british isles (with england, scotland wales and ireland included).
There should also be population genetics of iberian peninsula (perhaps balkans, scandinavia, italy too or something alon gthose lines).
so population genetics of iberian peninsula would be part of the european section whihc would be part of the world section.
just an idea, discuss. --Globe01 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Population genetics of the world sounds like a great article. And as I said previously, to do an Population Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula article seems a great idea  to me. --  · Ravenloft ·  · (talk) ·  21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Genetics of the World 

message: Another thing, you guys should read the wiki article on Haplogroup I. The small number of Visigoths who took over Spain have little to do with the presence of the I Haplogroup in the peninsula. The movement was South-North from the Iberian and Italic peninsulas rather than North-South and it occured during the Paleolithic. Similar to R1b. 
Those Scandinavians who have I1a are originally from southern Europe.--Burgas00 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment about the 33% I1a frequency would certainly need more references to make it into the article --  · Ravenloft ·  · (talk) ·  09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Haplogroup I revisited

message: Any one has any sources on this theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 
:Never heard of it. The whole issue of Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons is quite controversial, as the The Lapedo child affair shows. I blieve the mainstream theory is that there is no genetic contribution of Neanderthals to Modern human lineages. That type of speculation regarding Basques is probably best kept out of the articles. The Ogre 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basques related to Neanderthals?

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

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

message: Sorry for reverting before. But whats the big deal with how many Mexicans speak Spanish? As far as I know they all do... But is it relevant to this section of the article?--Burgas00 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only added it because the section is about the Spanish language (I acknowledge it's on the page of Spanish people)...and it speaks of populations who speak that language. Under it, it speaks of Spanish being transported to the Americas and what not...I think it's quite note worthy to add it in...It's only one sentence after all. (and not all Mexicans speak Spaniish, as the other user pointed out). C.Kent87 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I may have tied it in a little better...and I do see how it would fit further below, but up there it's speaking of the numbers involved with the language, it seems to go there as well. Thanks. C.Kent87 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continental groups means European groups. It's silly that you claim that by continental they mean Asians and Africans. First of all this is OR. Second of all, look at the graphs. And finally, have you heard of continental breakfast? Do you think they mean Asian and African breakfasts by that? LOL Lukas19 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico

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

message: I think there is important information missing in relation to the lat article introduced. I will introduce this comment:
"A recent genetic piece of research from 2007, contrasting European populations and other populations from Asia and Africa, claims: "The Spanish and Basque groups are the furthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestions that the Iberian peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry".
It is almost a literal quote and anyone can check the article. Since it contemplates the overall genetic structure of the Spanish in context with other European and non-European populations, and so recent as 2007 this part must be expressed clearl and not underplayed.
I have introduced it. I will wait for comments though. Veritas et Severitas 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continental groups mean European groups. It's silly that you claim that by continental they mean Asians and Africans. First of all this is OR. Second of all, look at the graphs. And finally, have you heard of continental breakfast? Do you think they mean Asian and African breakfasts by that? LOL Lukas19 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: "Castilians (a large culturally-dominant minority [7] who most strongly identify with a Spanish identity)"
This line in the article includes some assertions that could be considered POVed (or original reseach) and should be referenced or removed.
Does anybody have statistical data to state that Castilians are who MOST strongly identify with Spanish identity more than people from other parts of Spain?
The first part that defines Castilians as "a large culturally-dominant minority" could also be considered pejorative and reductionist. The inclusion of that half-truth in this context is unnecessary. The note (7) references only the population of the Autonomous Communities, but neither the definition of them as a minority (no Community could be considered a majority, hence it doesn´t give any new information) nor the cultural dominance nowadays. --Garcilaso 18:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a small clarification: in Madrid North Castillian is not spoken, but South Castillian (the same accent as in La Mancha, i.e. "ej que" accent"), thus being Spain a rare case where the way of speaking in the capital city is not the prestige standard.--Xareu bs 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I arrive late to this discussion, but I can't let that one go unanswered. The often touted notion that middle-class madrilenians speak with a northern accent is a plain lie. Many madrilenians, like other spaniards, fake an accent based on written Spanish, that is, pronouncing everything exactly as it is written, in formal occasions, or with outsiders. But in informal registers, most or all of them speak with a southern accent (s-aspiration, etc.). A very handy example : In all radio and TV programmes made in Madrid in which a conversational speech is used (humour, sports, ...), a southern accent, that is, a Madrid accent, is mandatory. I challenge anyone to name a single programme of this kind where you can hear northern accents. --Jotam 12:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with last post completely.--Xareu bs 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identification of Castilians

message: New study for ancestry section, seems to contradict much of what is said in this article. Is there any way of weaving it in without making the section sound contradictory? http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143
--Burgas00 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) For starters, under the heading of Differences between regions you removed all of the sources for that information, without any (apparent) good reason. Next, you removed of the Sykes and British Isles information, again without any justification. I understand you that you feel they are more appropriate elsewhere, but why? There is clearly a link between this information and the Spanish people; that is, the information is relevant to the article. It may also belong in an article on the British people, but then we would just have the information in two places. It contributes to the article, and is relevant, so I see no reason to remove this either. In light of this, I have reverted your edit again. Please explain your edits a bit more here on the talk page so we can reach a consensus, before you revert again. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 15:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad you took that decision, I was ready to point out the numerous POV pushing edits this article has had in the last two days. --  · Ravenloft ·  · (talk) ·  17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I say the info about the British issue was already consensuated, well formed, well written and well sourced before you decided to do the last edits. Thus, it should stay and it should stay as it was, at least until it receives the further ellaboration and expansion that such a relevant subject would deserve. --  · Ravenloft ·  · (talk) ·  17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article for ancestry section

message: Portugal and its empire was part of the Spanish empire from 1580 to 1640. But it seems that some users want to hide another fact too badly. I do not care. I am more and more convinced that Wiki stinks with so many people lying and manipulating. 65.11.70.234 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wich map, the one on the right or the one in the article Spanish Empire (an anachronous map)? And the question is more starting an article with a map that imediatly represents the Spanish Empire as including the Portuguese one (Notice that the Portuguese Empire page does not do the same), or having a map that presents only the Spanish Empire and further down in the article having this map here, a non-anachronous map, that represents both empires in the period of the personal union of the crowns, called the Iberian Union? The Ogre 12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no permanent Portuguese settlement in South Africa, but before the Dutch and the English the area was claimed by Portugal that de facto controled the shores, which still survives in some name places (ex. Cape Agulhas). See History of South Africa#European expeditions and History of Cape Colony. The Ogre 16:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map again 

message: Importation of subsaharan slaves into Europe had become a trickle from the mid 16th century. The Atlantic slave trade was overwhelmingly about getting slaves from Africa to the Americas. At the time it was virtually a Portuguese monopoly.  To give an idea of its magnitude I'll quote Hugh Thomas, an authority on the subject - For the first quarter of the 17th century the total number of African slaves shipped "probably approached 200 000, of which about 100 000 went to Brazil, over 75 000 Spanish America, 12 500 to Sao Tome and only a few hundred to Europe".(page 144, chapter 8: "The white men arrived in ships with wings", from The Slave Trade, Hugh Thomas 1997)
::This article on blacks in Spain is quite interesting, although it is in Spanish. http://www.elmundo.es/magazine/num124/textos/esclavo1.html
--Burgas00 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is interesting but I'll need time to look at it properly.  There were large numbers brought in by the Portuguese in the 15th & early 16th centuries - esp to the Algarve where labour was in short supply - & to Lisbon itself. This appears to be borne out in the relatively high level of sub-saharan haplogroups in southern Portugal compared to surrounding areas. But certainly there were black slaves in Spain but nothing like the numbers as was the case in labour starved Portugal, who had built up an extensive slave trading system in Africa in the 15th century from Henry the Navigator on. Hugh points out that as the demand for slaves in the New World grew in the 16th century then it became far more profitable to send them there and so the numbers brought to Europe went into a sharp decline. Elsewhere I read that by the 1550s the importation of slaves into Iberia was largely over - & the numbers involved were far smaller than what was to come in the following centuries, as the Dutch, British & French became major players from 1637.  The vast majority were carried on Portuguese ships, though a few ships in the flota also carried some slaves. I wouldnt be surprised that the higher value of slaves in the New World saw some transfered from the Iberian countries to be sold there - but this is a guess on my part. Provocateur 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a study on black slavery in Huelva in the 16th century which you may also find interesting. Especially the reasons for which they were freed! http://www.mgar.net/var/esclavos3.htm
--Burgas00 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Atlantic Slave trade had little effect 

message: I think someone should include the map of dialects of Spain in the footnotes. Not sure how to do that myself...--Burgas00 23:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: What in hell is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.108.52 (talk • contribs) 
fixed.--Burgas00 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Blood make-up"

message: As anyone can see, this article includes references to immigrants or even to very marginal traces of Sub-Saharan African DNA etc. And I support it. I would not like it otherwise. But it is worrying  how different articles are dealt with. 
Look at the English people article, or Dutch people articles (Dutch people of colored origins are a significant proportion of the population), etc. They make no mention of these or other issues.
It is especially interesting when England (to use a good example) is one of the places of Europe with the largest black population: 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British#Demographics
Interestingly they show up in an article of their own (Black Britons), but not as English people, Scottish people, Dutch people, etc. All this smells very fishy. 70.156.139.188 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordicist racist bias in these peoples articles. 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: I'm being very pushy about qualifying this section as it gives a misleading impression to most readers.  The two examples I used alert the reader to the dangers of making sweeping conclusions about such a complex matter. Provocateur 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifying "Other Influences" 

message: Should there not be a section on the Sephardic diaspora, as part of the Spanish people? K. --83.39.144.101 10:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SEPHARDIM