Talk:Portuguese people

Total population info in the infobox
This edit changed the total population from 5 million to 40 million. In August 19, an edit turned 40 into 5, and another edit turned 54 into 40. An old version, from May 2019, said 55 million.

The note [a] correctly says that "Total number of ethnic Portuguese varies wildly based on the definition."

I analyzed what the sources cited say. Below, I summed up the relevant parts of each reference, and then added the references below, as they appear on the article right now.


 * Ref [1]. Adriano Albino's study. Three generations down, there are 31,19 million Portuguese people outside of Portugal. Portugal would have over 40 million citizens if not for emigration. Official statistics say 4,53 million emigrated between 1951 and 1965.


 * Ref [2]. It cites Albino's study. It explains where the 40 million number comes from.
 * (Portugal has 10 million nationals. The 40 million figure is due to a study estimating a total of an additional 31 million descendants from Portuguese including grandparents; these people would be eligible for Portuguese citizenship under Portuguese nationality law (which  grants citizenship to grandchildren of Portuguese nationals). Emigração: A diáspora dos portugueses  (2009)) Archived link links to the same thing as Ref [1].


 * Ref [3]. This is a genetics paper. I couldn't find any mention of the total population of Portuguese people. It does not have the word "million" at all. I propose this be removed as a reference.
 * (ref name="ReferenceA" = )


 * Ref [4]. This is also a genetics paper, but talks more about total population and how Portuguese people affected Brazilian population. However, I couldn't find any direct quote about the total population of Portuguese people.
 * (ref name="PLoS ONE" = )


 * Ref [5]. This one talks about how the Portuguese government want to attracts immigrants, but does not talk about how many Portuguese people there are. I propose this be removed as a reference.
 * (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/portugal-emigration-incentives-population/)

Therefore, it seems that the only sourced information is the 40 million figure, based on Albino's study. I propose that the infobox present this number, which, fortunately, is the one currently in the article. Therefore, I propose we keep it this way. Mateussf (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese People / General Traits
I’ve noticed a string of repeat users (maybe the same individual under different names) adding and reverting Portuguese People’s degree of White vs Moorness. Why this is happening is beyond my comprehension as no historical, genetic or cultural features single out the Portuguese (natives) from the rest of Europeans: these edits clearly try to do that.

My suggestion therefore for Administrators is:

Make this page semi-protected or protected and prevent/stop further malicious editing as this appears to be a place for some anti-Portuguese (the most obvious type of sentiment tends to come from Brazilians and Spaniards who for different reasons, sometimes hold historical grudges against the Portuguese) kind of virtual ‘crusade’.

Wikipedia is an online Encyclopaedia for factual and unbiased information, not a shambolic virtual weapon to politicise distorted views.

Melroross (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Multicultural Portugal .jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mixed student group, Coimbra.jpg

Edit war
The article currently states: "There were also limited conversions of Jews and Berbers"

And nevertheless the source that it has linked affirms that: "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources."

There is no faithful correlation between the phrase and its source, neither in quantity nor in substance. In addition, two other sources of a scientific nature have been added, and both two scientific sources and the exact phrase extracted from the initial source of the article are being systematically eliminated by Melroross. NormanGear (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have registered to start the Talk and discuss the issue. I don't try to vandalize anything, nor am I against the Portuguese. I am simply putting what is literally at the source of the article. NormanGear (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

As I do not try to vandalize anything I have reversed my edition, and I have opened this thread so you can give your opinion on the subject. Please do not make harsh assessments and hate accusations. Discuss the topic calmly. NormanGear (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock


 * For any other editors viewing this - this is about this initial addition and this second attempt. KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have flagged this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal so other interested parties can comment KylieTastic (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Especially the second edition (Although the first one too) are literal words from the source. It isnt my opinion, its text extracted from the source itself that this article already uses. The current phrase is ambiguous and has no consistency with the source. NormanGear (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources."


 * "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low"

These are the exact fragments of the article source and on what I rely on my edition: "Finally, there are also a high mean proportion of ancestry from Jews and North African (Arab/Berber) as a result of the Moorish occupation, which generated a significant genetic footprint in the Western half of the Peninsula"

NormanGear (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock

= Melroross (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC) To the benefit of the doubt, and because despite my best efforts this hasn’t sunk in: The Portuguese People section has got ample material and several sub-sections where aspects like genetics are very well documented- if you are unsure on how to navigate pages, Wikipedia has an array of tools at everyone’s disposal.

Going by your “sourced materials on the matter”, Western Iberia comprises Spain and Portugal. What you’ve been trying to do is a manipulative and quite predictable, attempt to shift “Western” to Portugal only, which is not accurate nor acceptable. Conversely, I don’t see you adding this same material in the equivalent page “Spanish people/Spaniards”, which would be the logical thing to do. Now why is that? In fact what I witness, is yet another desperate attempt by a biased user based in the Madrid suburbs (ironically you live in a Mozarabic neighbourhood called San something of Alarcón (Alarcón procede de una voz árabe con el significado de “la fortaleza”, how appropriate) similarly to  “Spanish people/Spaniards” regular editors who try to conceal and minimise as much as possible the “Arab component” of Spain and treat this as some sort of historical and racial calamity. You are just another Spaniard obsessed with this matter, trying to shift YOUR Moors and Jews to your nextdoor neighbours. Wrong. Not accurate, not ethical and in fact pathetic. The “Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula” has more than ample research on this topic. If you have anything valuable to add, I suggest you consult that page. As I wrote here before, the regular Vandals on this page are almost invariably Brazilians or Hispanics (Spanish & Hispanic-Americans) who hold historical grudges and resentment against the Portuguese. You are just another one. Whilst I regret witnessing this sad conduct here, I will absolutely not tolerate it on Wikipedia and should I see any more of your vandalism, I will ensure you are permanently blocked. This far, your sole contribution to Wikipedia has been systematically reverting valuable work by other users and ranting about Jews and Arabs which you desperately try to push onto Portuguese people. Why not use the time and research on constructive contributions to ie. Spanish and Hispanic topics, your natural habitat? Ojalá Melroross (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you should focus on seeking a reasonable consensus, that's what the thread was made for. Making statements and personal accusations will not help at all. My proposal as I said above is to use the words and the meaning that appears in the source.

A greeting. NormanGear (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock

Orphaned references in Portuguese people
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Portuguese people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cunliffe": From Corded Ware culture:  From Atlantic Bronze Age:  From Celts: Cunliffe, Barry, (1997) The Ancient Celts. Oxford, Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-815010-5, pp. 183 (religion), 202, 204–08. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Systematic content reversions
Melroross is removing information supported by sources from the body of the article. The information that he is systematically deleting appears in the Lead, and therefore must also appear in the body of the article. The Lead is the summary of the body of the article, therefore it is evident that the information should also be mentioned or developed in the body of the article.

Please Melroross, stop reverting edits and starting Edit Wars. NormanGear (talk • contribs) 12:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock

— User:NormanGear has been reported for consistent reversal of verifiable materials, violation of the 3RR rule, violation of fundamental principles  and systematic reversion of fitting within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable, relevant against and reliable source, thereby ignoring editors' opinions and beliefs. Systematic hostile conduct and editing harassment which contrasts with talk pages, trying to gain sympathy for their disruptive actions. Several incidents have been reported to Administrators and communicated to the user accordingly. Third, neutral parties invited to investigate and deliberate.. Melroross (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Melroross: There is no evidence of violation of 3RR by either of you at this page. The rest of your concerns are content related. Please discuss your concerns at this talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, user Melroross is again reverting editions and deleting content supported by sources that are present even in the Lead. And he also does not try to find a solution or a consensus in this thread. NormanGear (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock


 * @NormanGear: Please discuss your concerns at this talk page. —'''

Re:User:NormanGear, despite my best efforts and countless warnings, you continue to engage on your disruptive Edit Wars and Harrassment on both Portuguese people and Spaniards in a partial and unfair effort to exaggerate the Moorish legacy in Portuguese people and minimise this same aspect in the Spanish people page. I have also warned you against COI edits and 3RR rules. You are saturating the intro with this topic, duplicating sources and placing the same texts and quotes both on Intro and Lead which I have tried to clear several times, only to have them reinstated again. I feel that at this stage and after countless incidents over the same topic, this is not mature or acceptable conduct and should you proceed with this conduct, I will have no option but to escalate this. Melroross (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese skin color compared to Polish
"A recent study by Candille et al. (2012) comparing pigmentation levels between the Portuguese and three other ethnically indigenous European national groups—the Irish, the Polish and the Italians—concluded that, in parts of the body not exposed to the sun, the Irish were in the lightest end of the spectrum, followed by the Portuguese, Poles and Italians, with the latter being darkest."

This is the correct order now. I just changed it. Someone keeps reversing it and putting Polish as lighter than Portuguese. I will copy here for your convenience the results of the study:

Skin (M)

Males

Mean (sd)

Ireland = 25.8 (2.4)

Poland = 28.5 (2.0)

Italy = 30.0 (2.5)

Portugal = 28.3 (2.7)

Therefore the order for males from lightest to darkest is: Ireland (25.8), Portugal (28.3), Poland (28.5), Italy (30.0).

Skin (M)

Females

Mean (sd)

Ireland = 27.0 (2.0)

Poland = 30.4 (1.9)

Italy = 31.3 (2.0)

Portugal = 30.3 (2.5)

Therefore the order for females from lightest to darkest is: Ireland (27.0), Portugal (30.3), Poland (30.4), Italy (31.3).

In both cases Portugal is lightest than Poland. Please stop reversing this order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1383:83E3:B9AD:3E7F:7788:109 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Diaspora in Chile
In Chile, 1% of surnames are portugueses (Tayer, 1989); equivalent to 174.000 descendants according to Censo 2017. Wikidromo 05:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits by
A user by the name of Melroross is removing content taken directly from the most comprehensive and recent genomic analyses on the Iberian populations. Their edits seem to have a problem with the reporting of the highest amounts of North African admixture in Iberia being in the western populations of Galicia and Portugal, which is supported by all the cited studies being referred to. Furthermore, the user is ignoring the content from Bycroft et al. and Olalde et al. which did not find evidence for significant amounts of Middle Eastern admixture (Jewish and/or Arab). All the studies specifically report the much higher and significant North African ancestry, which has been repeatedly duplicated. AnthroVeritas (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to Figure 5 and Figure 6 of the study by Bycroft et al., 2019, showing quite clearly the much higher North African admixture in Portugal and Galicia. Portugal forms a distinct cluster with Galician populations. All of the other cited studies say the highest North African admixture is in the west as well, in Galicia and Portugal, followed by the south (Andalusia), and is much higher than any Middle Eastern (Jewish or otherwise) ancestry, which Bycroft did not find significant levels of:

"Only six of the 29 donor groups show a contribution >1% in Iberia, and all are located in Western and Southern Europe, and north-west Africa (Fig. 6)." Thank you. AnthroVeritas (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"Differences within Iberia have also been reported, based on comparisons between sampled regions, with higher fractions observed in western regions of Iberia." (this is cited from Adams et al., 2008; again, this is another of all the citations showing the highest North African admixture in the west of Iberia)

"Perhaps surprisingly, north African ancestry does not reflect proximity to north Africa, or even regions under more extended Muslim control. The highest amounts of north African ancestry found within Iberia are in the west (11%) including in Galicia, despite the fact that the region of Galicia as it is defined today (north of the Miño river), was never under Muslim rule and Berber settlements north of the Douro river were abandoned by 741. This observation is consistent with previous work using Y-chromosome data. We speculate that the pattern we see is driven by later internal migratory flows, such as between Portugal and Galicia, and this would also explain why Galicia and Portugal show indistinguishable ancestry sharing with non-Spanish groups more generally." AnthroVeritas (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The studies also distinguish specifically North African ancestry (Berber). "Arab-Berber" is thus not what the studies find. Arab ancestry, which is not found to be significant, is part of Middle Eastern or Easter ancestry, along with Jewish or Phoenician. AnthroVeritas (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The new profile AnthroVeritas has only just started editing on WP. The user is obsessed, disruptive and highly biased on genetics. They appear to be Catalan or Italian or even Brazilian, and systematically try to over-emphasise the ‘Moorish’ genetic contribution in Portugal and Galicia, by evoking one study as if it were the Bible...or whatever. Their rants inflamed with competition and aggression, gravitate around Italy having less Middle-Eastern blood than Iberia, and Iberia, particularly Portugal as having the most. Not correct as Andalusia, Western Castile and even Galicia, all in Spain; have higher ‘Moorish’ genetic contribution than the Algarve populations of Southern Portugal. Also historically, linguistically, culturally, architecturally, musically, etc. the Moorish legacy was and is, way more prevalent in Spain. On the genetics front, I refer to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/
 * The user’s conduct is strongly WP:NPOV, disruptive (reverts and deletes previous contents by several editors) and has been engaging in disputes on other pages. It is dangerous to allow fanaticism such as this. Previous profiles with a similar conduct have been eventually identified as sockpuppet accounts and banned. Reminded user about WP:CONDUCT and WP:VOA potential consequences. Melroross (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am trying to discuss this with you, not to be disruptive. Please do not resort to personal attacks (WP:No personal attacks). I have presented specifically what all the studies being cited say. You are trying to just remove them because you do not like them. The studies all clearly state that the highest North African admixture is in the west of Iberia, in both Galicia and Portugal, especially the most comprehensive ones (did you read above?). I am only stating what the studies say. There is nothing about them stating anything about the "south of the country" or "south of Portugal". The studies only say that the highest North African admixture in Iberia - 11% - is in the west, in Galicians and Portuguese. This admixture is very significant, while little from putative Jewish or Arab (Near Eastern) sources has been detected. You have done nothing but remove the studies you do not like, like Bycroft et al, even though it is the most through to date, while ignoring the findings of the others which clearly state what I have entered (i.e. North African admixture is higher than Near Eastern, and it is highest in the west of the peninsula).


 * Furthermore, the study you just posted itself says that the North African admixture is highest in the west of the peninsula (Galicia and Portugal). This is what should be entered - that the admixture is highest in the west of Iberia - which is what I originally entered. And that is only on Y-DNA, which is less accurate and is dated. Bycroft et al. is recent and on the whole genome, and finds specifically the highest admixture to be in Portugal and Galicia. AnthroVeritas (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * From the study you just posted: "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low.
 * Bycroft et al is more recent, on the entire genome, and finds specifically the highest amounts of admixture are in Galicia (just like the Adams study) AND in Portugal. Portugal was part of Galicia in one kingdom that spread southwards during the Reconquista. The point here though is to state what all the studies say - and they all say the highest admixture is in the west of the peninsula, including Portugal. AnthroVeritas (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , you claim: "Also historically, linguistically, culturally, architecturally, musically, etc. the Moorish legacy was and is, way more prevalent in Spain."


 * This is your own, unqualified opinion, and does not override what is stated from experts in academic sources. It's irrelevant. And the Moorish legacy in Portugal was quite large, especially in southern Portugal. But you clearly are ignoring the findings, because Galicia did not have much of a history of Islamic presence either when compared to southern Spain, but as the studies all say, that does not show in the genetics, which all clearly have the west - Galicia and Portugal - having the highest North African admixture. That is all that matters here. We use data from academic sources here, not baseless opinions from editors. AnthroVeritas (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The studies ALL specifically say that the highest North African admixture in the Iberian peninsula is in the WEST of the peninsula, including Portugal ---> this is what the studies say and what should be entered in the article. The absolute highest in terms of whole genome is in Galicia and Portugal (as per Bycroft et al), while in Y-DNA (limited and less accurate), it is in Galicia and Northwest Castile (Adams et al.).


 * AnthroVeritas which part of your wrong conduct is still unclear to you, and why you are obsessed with your Olalde arguments is beyond comprehension. Here is the link and figure mentioned previously:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/figure/fig2/?report=objectonly

and

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/figure/fig4/

You cannot use one single work and use it as THE absolute truth as studies are often biased the selves and science evolves. This is a highly sensitive subject which must be treated with neutrality and avoid the inflammatory tone you use. I will not condone any further biased reverts or tolerate your continued aggressive, harassing and insulting personal attacks and grievous behaviour- stop leaving me messages and pinging and if you are a good faith editor as you claim to be, then help WP constructively and stop causing conflict with other editors. End of conversation. Melroross (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you reading what I am posting? I am referring to ALL of the studies, which ALL state that the North African admixture is highest in the west of the peninsula (that is all I want entered), and this includes Portugal. I am not using one study, but ALL of them: Olalde, BYCROFT and Adams. You are conveniently ignoring Bycroft and keep removing it altogether, even though it is the most detailed source. I have not made any personal attacks, but you have repeatedly, making several insults and insulting studies based on the ethnicity of the author. Your behaviour has not been cooperative. We must go by what the studies say, not by your own opinion. The studies say the admixture is highest in the west. The Y-DNA study you cite is limited, on a tiny fraction of uniparental markers - but it also states the highest admixture is in the west. But we have to include the other studies - Olalde and BYCROFT - which are on whole genome, and are the most detailed and thorough to date. Bycroft also says it is highest in the west. So, what is the problem here? AnthroVeritas (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The study you just posted is cited by Bycroft, and Bycroft says the findings of the highest North African admixture in the west agree with the study you are posting by Adams. The Adams study (which includes Portugal) you just posted also literally says there is a West-East cline, and that the highest NA admixture is in the west. The Portuguese samples in that study are far higher in North African Y-DNA than in eastern Spain. Read Figure 5 and Figure 6 by Bycroft, which corroborates this based on a much larger analysis (whole genome):
 * Figure 5
 * Figure 6

AnthroVeritas (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * AnthroVeritas that is precisely my point all along: Western Iberia is not Portugal only and also not Galicia-Portugal as your dangerous post emphasised. Also in a contemporary context one cannot ignore the vast internal migrations within nations- a very high percentage of the Catalan and Greater Barcelona area today is made of Andalusian descendants for instance.
 * Portugal makes 10% of Iberia, meaning that even if you use the West-East precise split line, it will still be something like 25% of the geography. That is why allowing the Western Iberian generic to become synonymous with Portugal-Galicia is not only inaccurate, it has serious political implications. I am very familiar with the cultural/ethnic continuum of Portugal-Galicia vis-a-vis Hispanism. Spain has always been fearful of the Galician-Portuguese co-identity. As for cultural differences, they are facts (also evidenced on numerous WP articles); Portugal has much less Moorish influences than Spain as a Nation.

Melroross (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you just stated is original research, conjecture and your own opinion. That is not scholarly research from expert sources. I never said western Iberia is only Portugal, but it does include Portugal, which does have the highest North African admixture along with Galicia in terms of whole genome analysis, and the highest in Y-DNA after Galicia and Northwest Castile. I never stated anything implying "west Iberia=Portugal". I only entered what the sources say, that western Iberia (all of it, in Portugal and in western Spain) has the highest North African admixture, which it does. The study by Bycroft et al., 2019, is also not "dangerous". If you personally feel that way, that is not relevant here. Its findings are sound, and Bycroft et al. is the most thorough genetic study ever done on native Iberian populations (it is on the whole genome, and analyzes fine-structure), with samples across the peninsula. Its western samples, again, show the highest North African admixture, in line with all other studies, including Galicia and Portugal specifically (which it found to be the highest). But I am only proposing stating that "the highest North African admixture is in the western regions of the Peninsula" (not only Portugal, but including it.)


 * As for your claim about Andalusian migrants in Barcelona, those are not native Catalans, but that is also not relevant here. The studies are on long resident, native or indigenous populations, not recent immigrants and their descendants from other regions. We only go by what the expert studies say, and they clearly show natives of eastern Iberia have very low levels of North African admixture, while the west of Iberia - including Portugal - has the highest. It is almost absent in the northeast, and is completely absent in parts of the Basque Country (Figure 5, Figure 6; 11% in parts of Galicia and the Portuguese sample, 0% in parts of the Basque Country).


 * The high North African admixture (shown by red "Western Sahara" and blue "North Morocco" in Figure 6), along with the higher Celtic (shown by the green "Ireland" donor group in Figure 6) admixture, in Galicia and Portugal is part of what sets them apart genetically as clusters from central and eastern Iberian populations. AnthroVeritas (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * AnthroVeritas, glad to have reached a compromise. My point was always not to use a tone which came across as biased and overemphasised. If you wish to contribute with genetics editing and improve it, this article is specific for Iberian populations:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula

Melroross (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Melroross,AnthroVeritas: Just come across this argument between you two. I think you both have some fair points, but Melroross you have to stop taking this personally as an insult to your racial purity as a Portuguese person. The 1930s are over and genetics have shown racial purity doesn't exist - and where it does it tends to lead to serious genetic conditions. And Anthroveritas, if the purpose is to "blame" the abnormally high African admixture in the Iberian peninsula on the Portuguese, that doesn't work either and sources would not support this. Two studies have been published since Bycroft using Spanish samples coming to similar conclusions.
 * My two cents: Firstly, Bycroft is clearly the most reliable study on this topic to date since it includes the largest number of samples (even if it doesn't seem to cover southern Andalusia) and all are people who have all 4 grandparents born in the same region (and probably eat a lot of pork meat since they are stomach cancer patients). However, Bycroft is not reliable on Portugal since it does not provide any information on where the samples are from in that country. All studies from last 8 years seem to agree that there is a slightly stronger east-west cline of African admixture in the peninsula but the north-south one is also significant. The southern and western clusters have practically identical levels of African admixture, with the southern cluster having more recent input with a sub-saharan element. Evidently Portugal by virtue of its position in South West Iberia has more African admixture than Spain on average but this does not mean African admixture correlates exactly with modern political or linguistic boundaries. Parts of Huelva or Cadiz provinces in southern Spain may have more African admixture than anywhere in Portugal. And of course, the Canary Islands on the whole (with a population equivalent to the Basque region or 1/5 of Portugal) have well in excess of 20% African admixture on average. I would also mention that the Basque cluster with 0% African admixture does not represent the Basque population as a whole but a small unadmixed minority of the Basque population. As for Olalde, we have to be careful, the data is fine but the way he interprets it is a little dodgy. Php2000 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blanking a huge section isn't the answer though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Php2000 (talk) and User:EvergreenFir ((talk), your comments are very sensible and correct. Thank you for that. My point was never attempting to claim “racial purity” but not to allow the PERCEPTION to be manipulated in the way which this page has been the target of, on several occasions. And one thing that is an issue in Spain and not in Portugal: trying to avoid and suppress the Moorish influence, as if you have Moorish in your genes and in your culture and language, you are less European/White. The “Moorish Spain” aspect has been explored historically by the English and Dutch, and later by the Americans against the Spaniards- due to geo-political conflicts. Spaniards=Moors is a derogatory and racist topic used against Spain for centuries. It is therefore understandable that the Spaniards feel particularly strongly about their degree of “Moorishness”. And that shows in the “Spaniards” page on Wikipedia- an exaggerated space and emphasis given to the Visigoths and the reverse to the Moors. The latest trend being “western and south Iberia” in an attempt to try get rid of the Moor genes by shoving them to the next-door neighbour at any cost.

The Portuguese (historical allies to the English) are generally not racially aware and don’t see the historical Moorish presence as an issue- it happened many centuries ago, like all the other invasions and there was never a question about being anything other than European as a people or as a culture.

What I have witnessed here has been a clear attempt of fact manipulation- trying to make “western Iberia” synonymous with Portugal and as you (and I) rightly pointed out, the reality is that Western regions of Andaluzia/Castile in Spain, have higher concentration of North-African genes than the Algarve, in Portugal. I never brought the Guanche, Ceuta and Melilla populations to the equation as they are not Continental. I wanted to clarify my stance on this- the intention was never (and shouldn’t be) to obfuscate facts but to STOP biased and inaccurate arguments, data and criteria to serve another nation’s issue and inferiority complex. Good-faith, fair and up-to-date contributions are always welcome of course. Administrators already made this page semi-protected because of repeated abuse. That is why I will continue watching this page, as every now and again invariably a Spaniard, Brazilian or Italian (historical grudges?) vandalises this page. Wikipedia must not be used as a political tool.13:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Melroross (talk)


 * These other users have brought unnecessary personal attacks and ad hominems into this. Melroross, as you know, we had reached a fair consensus. We're both aware of what the studies say. There is no need for accusations of ideologies from the other users here. The sources speak for themselves. Reflect what they say only. I would point out though that the content here is specific to the Portuguese. It should not be duplicated on the Spaniards article. Portuguese form their own distinct genetic cluster and admixture levels, most similar to their Galician kin. The rest of Spain, especially the northeast, has its own distinct genetic histories. In terms of "racial purity", it very much exists, depending on what people classify as pure (90% pure? 80%? And purity of what?) or what they are referring to. For example, if you want to find the purest modern people of EEF Neolithic ancestry, that is without a doubt the Sardinians - they are the modern population most similar to ancient DNA of Neolithic European farmers. Groups vary in their levels of homogeneity and isolation. And there is no demonstrated overall net harm or benefit to either homogeneity or heterogeneity - too much of both can present both deficiencies and benefits of genetic variants. Too much inbreeding depression causes problems, and so does too much outbreeding depression that results in the loss of much of the original genetic variety and unique variants of the parent populations. Too much mixing does lead to a loss of diversity - just as is the case in subspecies and populations in other animal species, which is why we try to conserve and preserve the genetic integrity and "purity" of distinct biological populations or subspecies.


 * Too much mixing of foreign populations into, for example, the Hadza people - one of the most ancient and divergent populations - will lead to a massive loss of an enormous number of unique genetic variants, physical traits and overall diversity. AnthroVeritas (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Article lacks so many things
Take this article as an example of what you should do.

There's nothing that refers to culture. There's a lack of photos of the average people and the only one there is are pictures of people from portuguese descent from other countries.

Ygglow (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic galleries
I just removed about 30 kBytes of picture galleries. In my opinion, the guideline WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES exists to protect WP from arbitrary selection (e.g. everybody adding the picture of his / her favourite chef / scientist / musician ...) and also to protect the encyclopedic nature of WP. But still I feel sorry, because I know that a lot of work was necessary to create the galleries. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Espejo del Perú
Espejo del Perú no es una fuente fiable, puesto que el sitio web es un blog. Acto seguido, la supuesta monografía que hace de referencia para varias de las ascendencias mencionadas en dicha página, dígase: [Abuhadba Rodrigues, Daniel (2007); Monografía: «Origen de los Apellidos en el Perú», Cusco, Perú, Fondo Editorial de la UNSAAC – Publicación disponible en la Biblioteca Universitaria de la UNSAAC (2007)], no existe en la mencionada biblioteca: véase. El autor tampoco existe fuera del sitio Espejo del Perú, cuando se le busca en buscadores como Google, Google Scholar, etc. no existe, cuando lo lógico es que haya más huellas de su aporte, considerando la importancia de sus supuestas contribuciones. Por ende, hace un buen tiempo que Espejo del Perú no es una fuente fiable para Wikipedia en español, y por ende, para toda Wikipedia, incluyendo su versión en inglés. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Max Planck Institute's conclusion regarding Lusitanian
The cited article does not mention Lusitanian, so I wonder if whoever added this passage could expand the published text by explaining how the study supports the thesis that Lusitanian cannot be Italic or has to be Celtic. KindSeriousMan (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)