Talk:Portuguese people/Archive 1

South African Portuguese Population
What is the source for arriving at 1 million people of Portguguese ancestry living in South Africa? This would immply that 1 in 5 white people in South Africa are of Portuguese extraction. Is there a census or other source of data that can back this claim up? The source should appear on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.128.68 (talk • contribs)
 * There are about 300,000 or 400,000 people of Portuguese extraction in SA. In the 1980s they represented about 9% of the white South African population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.198.37 (talk • contribs)
 * That may be so. But what is your source? The Ogre 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,879516,00.html "Heavy Casualties. The combined Soviet-Cuban contingent has inflicted heavy casualties on the F.N.L.A. and UNITA forces, despite military support from Zaïre regulars and South African advisers. As a result, Portuguese businessmen are recruiting replacements from the large Portuguese community (400,000 people) in South Africa."

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=South+Africa Also includes Angloromani, Eastern Yiddish, Greek (70,000), Gujarati, Hai||om, Hakka Chinese (6,063), Kung-Ekoka (3,500), Portuguese (617,000), Standard German (45,000), Tamil (250,000), Yue Chinese (15,000), workers from nearby countries (2,700,000).

http://www.teiaportuguesa.com/cacaaotesourolusofonia/lusofoniajorgecouto.htm "Em África merecem ainda destaque o numero de falantes na África do Sul (superior a 1 milhão, dos quais 600 mil portugueses e 400 mil). Depois do inglês e do africano, línguas oficiais da África do Sul, o português surge como a primeira língua estrangeira. Na Namíbia, país que tem fronteira sul com Angola, um em cada cinco habitantes é falante de português."

http://www.igadi.org/arquivo/te_se05/transaccions_identitarias_a_diaspora_portuguesa.htm "Táboa 1. Portugueses que viven no estranxeiro* (1997) [...] África do Sur 500.000 Fonte: Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Portugal). Citado en Rocha-Trindade (2000)."
 * Cálculo estimativo.

The figure of 600,000+ has been floating around for decades and originally referred to the number of Portuguese in ALL of southern africa (including angola, mozambique, et al.)--Paulalexdij (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of Brazilians claiming Portuguese Ancestry
I wonder where the 34,000,000 figure in the article comes from. As far as I know, the Brazilian census does not include any data on self-declared ancestry. There are no official estimates therefore of the number of Brazilians who claim to be descendents of Portuguese settlers or immigrants. However, a question on ancestry was introduced a few years ago in one of IBGE's annual national household sampling surveys ("pesquisa nacional por amostra de domicílios"). If I´m not mistaken, the percentage of Brazilians claiming Portuguese ancestry in that particular survey was merely 13 %. Considering the universe of the Brazilian population, that would represent approximately 20 million people today (as opposed to 34 million). 161.24.19.82 11:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where that info. is from, but there are various official and non-official sources on the web which shows estimate of those with solely or mainly Portuguese ethnic origins from 20 million to 50 million or more. Considering over half of the population of Brazil has at least some degree of Portuguese ancestry, it is difficult to accurately tell in any census. Epf 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe 34 million is not an overstatement but an understatement, as before the independence in 1825 portuguese were the pretty much the single european settlers, and after the independence portuguese were at all times the larger numbers of immigrants. The referred 13% of brazilians claiming portuguese ancestry in that survey may refer only to those who can trace their origin back to a portuguese grandfather or grandmother but reflect at the most last century migration and not the 500 years of peopling. Fernão. 15.06.2006

Sources please. Proof that 34,000,000 identify themselves as "Portuguese".
 * I've noticed that someone has decided to use another wikipedia article as a citation. This is not acceptable. Look at Citation #1. I also notice that citations are being used but citation templates are not being used with them. Templates provide a standard format for citations and often cause a contributor not to forget key elements. For example, the cite web template requires, URL, ACCESSDATE and TITLE.  There are additional fields, but it will error out if you don't atleast contribute those 3 elements.  Please see WP:CITET.  Nhl4hamilton 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Most ethnic Brazilians (I can safely say +95%) are descendants of Europeans, by obvious historical reasons. Considering that a tiny number of Central, Eastern and Northern Europeans as well Spaniards immigrated to Brazil in comparison of the numbers of Portuguese settlers and immigrants (the only exception is the Italian immigration), we would say that not only most Black and Pardo Brazilians are of some Portuguese origin (usually most of their ancestry according to DNA researches), but that Portuguese Brazilians are the greatest White Brazilian community (nowadays most of other European Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestor too, as well the Japanese Brazilian community in this generation is starting to miscegenate in high numbers as it is common in Brazilian culture). It is confusing to think "who is a Portuguese Brazilian?", since +60% of Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry as their major genetic matrix, our vernacular language is almost identical to European Portuguese and one of the most important basis of Brazilian culture is the Portuguese culture. Lguipontes (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Cape-Verdians?
I feel like this article should mention something about Cape Verde?? 141.154.255.167 Talk, 16:25, 27 April 2006.
 * Sure, but what are you thinking should be included about Cape Verde? Epf Talk, 02:07, 3 May 2006.

Cape Verde is now an independant state. Its current population or its diaspora doesn´t consider itself Portuguese. Cape Verdean immigrants were considered "Black Portuguese" decades ago in New England, USA.

Cape Verde has a minor historical connection to Portugal and, of course, Portuguese culture has been subtantialy absorbed into Cape Verdian society. However, Cape Verdians have nothing to do with the NATIVE Portuguese. Their roots are Black African, but certainly many in the population are products of both black and caucasian.

Anthropologique 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In matter of fact, there's a discussion if Cape Verde islands were inhabitated when europeans first arrived or not like document, by Elisa Andrade, issued by cape-verdian Instituto das Comunidades [www.ic.cv/Word/historiaCV.doc] (access on June, 14, 2007) "Although, we disagree from the majority that pretends that the Archipelago was inhabitated when it was found. Like many others – among them António Carreira - we are from the opinion that can't be excluded the hypothesis that Santiago has sheltered a little group of Jalofos shipwrecks or another inhabitants (Sereres, Felupes, Lêbus, etc) from Cape Verde (Senegal). Those last two groups, says the oral tradition, came to islands atracted for their fish abundance and to gather salt, in Sal island, that traded by gold from Tombuctu". However the portuguese presence on Cape Verde was massive, and cape-verdians claim to be "uma nação crioula" (a creole nation). Lfdneves 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cape Verdeans in New England in the 1980s self identified as "Portuguese"; Cape Verde was a specific place of origin, like the Azores, or Lisbon. MayerG (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ogre (rv racilalist pov)
sorry, but it is a view which is valid ( Previous version ) and is not based on wishful thinking but historical and scientific facts and evidence. i could cite sources but i dont see a reason why, when it is not such a secret, other than to justify these claims to "racialists" of an opposing view who may want to suppress this information. if this is the case then i am in a position to require sources for the current claims in the article. in the Spaniard article claims of similar nature are made and mentions DNA etc. also to its own extent and i dont see it as being a problem over there. the theories in the pre-reverted version were not expressed as being fact moreso than what was already there. one could construe the action of reverting to be racialist since it is suppression of information not from my own research but from what wikipedia would consider verifiable external sources. it didnt all have to be deleted. even the part about skin tone and even average height was removed when i see it as being no different from the mention of hair and eye color (which makes a (racialist?) point of saying that blue and green eyes and blonde hair can be found) and the population is in fact now over 10.5 million according to the CIA worldbook of facts, which i may not necessarily always agree with but is a source which is external and i dont think a census is as subjective as certain other particulars. maybe this part was just a victim of complete reversion, nevertheless the information which was added is as valid as any other claims previously in the article with equal backing. --Lusitano Transmontano 01:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC

- - - -

Transmontano, the previous version was just plain wrong!! The article as now written is pretty darn accurate, thank you.

Foo Fighter

- - - -

No no no... it was NOT wrong. While some of it may have been negligible don't tell me it was wrong. It just doesn't want to be admitted. This would just have turned into a battle of egos. Portuguese don't want to admit a lot of things. But I know my background and I also know my own family history so I know I am right. Anyone serious about accuracy shouldn't even bother with a lot of Wikipedia articles anyway since they can't tell what is accurate, how much is suppressed and how much is propaganda. Anyone who needs to do serious work shouldn't stop at Wikipedia but go to REAL sources, go to a library or get a real encyclopedia for serious work people. And the Ogre tagging my view as racialist shoots him/her in their own foot. I say the Ogre is racialist and YOU are wrong Foo Fighter. Thank YOU.

Lusitano Transmontano 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism and the Portuguese
This article mentions in its very first paragraph that Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion of the Portuguese. Although that cannot be considered false, one can nowadays easily witness that the majority of the Portuguese Catholics seldom practice Catholicism, with many not practicing it at all and identifying themselves as "catholics" just for the sake of it being the common norm. Atheism and Agnosticism are on the rise in Portugal, especially among the youth. Other religions are also present and growing. Therefore, I would suggest a section in the article refering to the religious panorama of the Portuguese, rather than the Catholicism reference in the first paragraph which may mislead the reader into believing that the Portuguese are usually devout Catholics.--Húsönd 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! The Ogre 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the infoboxe it says "Religion: Catholicism". Shouldn't we say "Roman Catholicism" or something like that, since Catholic is also used by some other churchs (Anglicans, ...)?


 * I believe that you might be confusing "Catholic" with "Christian". Anglicans, etc., are Christians, but not Catholics. Anyway, "Roman Catholicism" is indeed a more accurate form than just "Catholicism".--Húsönd 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasnt confusing, in fact, I read somewhere that some anglicans or protestants want to be called catholics but not in the roman meaning (francly, I don't understand that subject very well, but I think that it was because of that controversy that the article Catholic Church had to be renamed Roman Catholic church or something). Anyway, seeing that some portuguese may not be Roman catholic I will leave it like that. Cheers.


 * I have never read so much foolishness as the comment stated by Husond. Catholics are indeed Christian. In fact, they are the largest Christian denomination in the world. Just read Wikipedia's Christianity page.


 * I think you misunderstood Húsönd's comment. On the other hand, Húsönd does not seem to know that, indeed, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Christian church which calls itself "Catholic". FilipeS 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there something in the article about religion in Portugal that talks about how Portuguese Catholicism has always been rather nominal and laidback, even semi-pagan and superstitiuous, and that the clergy did little if anything to stop this? I'm Orthodox, but it seems to me that all too often, "Catholic" becomes a meaningless umbrella term and it becomes rather taken for granted. --71.240.139.212 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Influence of the black people
Where is the influence of the black people in the portuguese? Portugal was the most slavery state in Europe. Thousands of slave came to Portugal and of Portuguese has blood of black people actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.19.29 (talk • contribs)

The above statement is so incredibly false it is laughable! A myth propagated by ignorant cretins...Grow up already! Also, kindly brush up on your English so people can actually make sense of what you are writing...

Barber of Seville

what influences?...Read some history. Black slaves at the highest point amounted to no more than 2% of the population. Mixing was practically non-existent. Now if you want to talk about Liverpool and Bristol, that's different. The great majority of slaves that came into Lisbon, Lagos and other ports were re-exported to the New World and other parts of Europe.

The Sharkman

Certainly, black slaves and servants either transited or lived in Portugal. The percentage that settled in the country after abolition was less than 1% of the total population and a fair number of those did apparently mix with white people, but, in VERY specific areas of southern Portugal, where Black and Berber-Arab slave labor communities existed during the mid-15th to mid-16th century period. Alcacer do Sal in the Alentejo is one example. The town was a center for salt production and a considerable Black and "Moorish" slave and servant population was clearly present in that village. In addition, Black and Arab / Moorish slaves who had developed leprocy were isolated there and in one or two other small villages. As a consequence, miscegenation came as much from necessity as choice. In sum, we are talking about an extremely low level of race mixing.

Henriques


 * See Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. FilipeS

Sources please. Preferably from serious sources, ie. no neo-nazi or "White Power" propaganda sites.
 * No need to ask sources, it was just an oversensitive spaniard (look at the IP) probably tired of being called half-arab, half-gipsy from the forums he likes to read that has chosen to divert attentions by focusing on its neighbors. Pitiful.

Yes, to be sure...probably from some back water in Cadiz...whatever.

This "Portuguese are 10% Black" myth has been propagated by the likes of the late neo-nazi Dr. William Pierce, Tom Metzger who likes to have sex with Mexican hookers in Tijuana, and Kevin Strom who is an American neo-nazi pedophile njow in jail for stalking a 9 year old girl. The myth was created to present the Portuguese as an example of a decadent nation without a future and to humiliate Portuguese people as being inferior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.0.106 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado
Oh for god's sake, what is nelly furtado doing there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnYoNe! (talk • contribs)
 * Nelly Furtado's parents are Portuguese... Opinoso 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. She's a Portuguese Canadian. The Ogre 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * She's portuguese 100% and also speaks the language fluently, not to mention she has albums in Portuguese. 70.50.22.159 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody put more Portuguese people up there please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.51.42 (talk • contribs)

Friend, i'm portuguese, i've heard her talk portuguese and let me tell you, she most definetly does 'not speak fluent portuguese. At best she fits the same brand as Steve Perry, that doesn't make her portuguese. Switched her image with an image of Amália. --AnYoNe! 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Take Nelly Furtado's image out! She is NOT Portuguese! Her parents may be Portuguese, but she IS CANADIAN! Get a image of her parents if you like her so much, but her photo there is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.11.59 (talk • contribs)
 * Done. I put Cavaco Silva, who is our current President. Yes, I'm Portuguese, that's why I, along with the others, got so upset about seeing Nelly Furtado there. Also, I've heard her in interviews and in songs, and she does NOT speak Portuguese correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.11.59 (talk • contribs)

Nelly Furtado is an ethnic Portuguese. And known worldwide, as are the others portraied (Vasco da Gama, Fernão de Magalhães e Durão Barroso). Furthermore, she is a woman and a picture of a woman should be included. Opinoso has already re-included her and well. I'm removing Cavaco Silva - it destroys the formating and does not respect the criteria of worldwide notability. Thank you. The Ogre 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said! Ô 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Are you really saying that "Cavaco Silva" dosen't respect the worldwide notability? How can you say that? He is the president of Portugal! And Nelly Furtado only has portuguese parents, that dosen't make her portuguese, not even portuguese-canadian. She is canadian, no doubts about it. And yes, i'm portuguese too and she has a terrible portuguese. 23 August, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patomenn (talk • contribs).
 * Hello and welcome Patomenn. Notice that you are replying to a discussion terminated on July. And no, Cavaco Silva is not known worldwide - most people outside Portugal do not know who the hell the Portuguese President is. And Nelly Furtado is not, obviously, a Portuguese Citizen - she is however an Ethnic Portuguese and a Canadian Citizen - in that sense she is a Portuguese Canadian, even if, agreed!, her Portuguese language skills suck! She would still be an Ethnic Portuguese even if she didn't spoke Portuguese at all! The Ogre 11:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

People of unmixed Portuguese ancestry born or living abroad have every right to describe themselves as Portuguese even if they don´t know the language and NOTHING SOME RIDICULOUS HAUGHTY SO-CALLED "DOUTOR" (Note: Degrees from Portuguese learning institutions are not recognized as serious in foreign countries.) IN PORTUGAL CAN SAY WILL CHANGE THIS. People define themselves and not some corrupt "know it alls" in "Porchugall". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.0.106 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i don't know how accurate any of these statistics are - my parents are portuguese from the azores and i can tell you that i have a very red haired/freckled sister and brother and my maternal grand mother was platinum blonde. My husband who was born in the azores has beautiful blue-green eyes although he has dark hair - 3 out of his 5 sisters were all light/blondish hair with blue or green eyes and his father had blue eyes etc. I, along with 3 other of my siblings, of 6 have the "typical" portugese look with dark hair and dark eyes etc.

-of portuguese descent!

Portuguese hair and eye color
I've added some percentages based on anthropologist Peter Frost. The original source is: Frost, Peter (2006), "European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?", Evolution and Human Behavior, n.27, 85-103. The Ogre 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 02/2009


 * Well the source you provided is a joke with no reference at all to the source statistic material. There is no way portugal has 20% blondes in its population, believe me. Only countries in northern Europe have % that high. Watchan FC Porto game and tell me how many blondes you see in the crowd at the Dragao stadium. Like 1 in 1000. C'mon guy, don't be ridiculous here. 70.50.22.159 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

02/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.217.47 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello 70.50.22.159! You said: "eh - Listen guy, give me a break here. I know alot of Portuguese people, and I only know one who has MIXED blonde shades. No one in Portugal has lightest blodne shades seen in northern Europe and there is now way that 20% of the whole country has blonde hair ? Have yo uever been there ? There is NO way the country has that much blondes and I would bet my life on that. England barely has that percentage even though the majority of people there are of pale complexion. DOn't be riduloucs. The website you referenced is a joke. Portugal has one of the highest percetnages of darker complexions in all of Europe, and the smallest in lighter complexions."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.213.191 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

.................

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.217.47 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all I must tell that it is a bit annoying to have to talk to an anonymous IP adress... Why don't you register? Secondly, regarding our small "war" in the Portuguese people article, let me tell you that it was never my intension to say that 50% of the Portuguese have blond hair! I also made a mistake, I meant light coloured hair, not blond. This includes various shades of brown and red hair. Notice also that the percentages are shown in intervals. The references I used are also shown in the articles White people and Hair color. And I am Portuguese! And I live in Portugal! And I am not a nordicist of any kind. I was just trying to find some sources and numbers to qualify the assertion. And there are a lot of Portuguese with light coloured eyes (I would say about 30%, but that is just my impression), as there are a lot of Portuguese, albeit and obvioulsy not the majority, that have some shade of light coloured hair (and I do known many that have absolutly blond hair). I wrote what I wrote because the article by Peter Frost (Why is Frost, Peter (2006), "European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?", Evolution and Human Behavior, n.27, 85-103 "a joke"? Isn't a published article in a scientific paper a legitimate source?) is a recent source with numbers! I won't add it again soon. I'm waiting for reactions. Let's both relax a bit. Cheers! The Ogre 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The maps shown in White people:

You may want to explore some DNA studies on the Portuguese. You could be surprised at what 1000 years of Celtic civilization and 400 years of Germanics have contributed. In any case, the percentage of light brown / auburn hair people in Portugal is fairly high and you certainly see some lighter blonds as you go further north. In Minho and Tras os Montes it is not all that uncommon to encounter redheads and light blonds. Also parts of the Beiras have quite a significant percentage of lighter types, mainly because of Visigothic influences. Blue and green eyes are quite common in the north. I would say the percentage of lighter haired people, at least in mainland Portugal, is about 25 to 35%. Lighter eyes (blue, green, grey) more like 30-35% (I am not including dark hazle eyes).


 * Minor nitpick: the Celtic Civilization is hard to define. The original "Atlantic Celts" were dark-haired and dark-eyed - the English used this to call the Welsh and Irish Africans in the 19th century, see the "Index of negriscence" issue. What escapes most of the horribly ignorant people that like to write at lenght about what "Europeans" look like - I'm not talking about you, of course, you know what I mean - is that the base, Upper Paleolhitic substractum of Europe, from which Iberia more than any other region derives population-wise, was dark-haired and dark-eyed. I wouls day blonds are relatively rare around here (circa 8-10%) while lighter shades of brown or blondish hues around 20-30%.

Anthropologique 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your points are very good and the percentages presented reasonable. I was born in the Alto Minho and hair shades are generally lighter there, although dark brown to black is still somewhat dominant. However, many people do have light eyes, sometimes even if their hair is dark and a majority have considerably fairer skin than in many parts of southern Portugal. I have at least three cousins with ice blue eyes who look more Irish than Portuguese or Southern European.
 * Yes, Alto Minho has a higher degree of light eyes (probably Swebian? Not sure). I have family from that area, although they are brown eyed/brown haired. The green/blue eyed people in my family come from the interior Alentejo though, so this things are *far* from being clear-cut. Tras-os-montes, for example, near you, has a vast majority of brown eyed/brown haired people, with dark complexions, probably because they are the closest to the original inhabitants of Iberia. Also have in mind the different sun exposure, there is a cline from North to South. My point here is far from saying that light eyes/hair are rare - they aren't rare, they are a minority, it's diferent, but simply that this modern trend of bashing brown eyes as it's some sign of exoticness is utterly ridiculous. Also, the vast majority of our immigrants are from the North, not the South. That doesn't seem to bother those that have a nordicist agenda. Also, Irish is a broad term, and the original population there was actually brown eyed and brown haired (see the "Black Irish" article). "Southern European" is also a broad term... while phenotypically people from the South of Europe do share several traits in terms of haplogroups they are quite different in a West/East perspective (not better or worse for that though).

Anthropologique 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, did you chance upon a study conducted by Trinity College, Dublin done in cooperation with several other universities? . The conclusions are that the Scottish and Irish are much closer genetically to the Galicians (and Northern Portuguese) than any other peoples. Actually, I'm not all that surprised since, as you rightly mentioned, the Celtic "wave" flowed first into Iberia then North along the Atlantic fringe. The study is also mentioned in the 10 September 2004 edition of The Herald, Dublin.

Minhoto
 * I'm logged in now, I'm the anonymous in the previous messages. Yes, I have read that study, that's part of what I was refering to. The study points to similarities between the indigenous Britons (e.g. pre anglo-saxon) and Iberians, particulary with Basques and the Northern Atlantic parts of Iberia. The Lebor Gabbala does mention that the Milesians set forth from Gallaecia. In any event the R1b distribution was already a good indicator. That also shows the perils of assuming that genetic resemblence automatically translates into phenotypical resemblence (although, as I said, both in Ireland and Wales there is a subset of the population that remains closer to Iberia than the rest). Another important point here, which I aluded before, is that the whole concept of "Celtic Wave" for this "primitive" Celts is being disputed... there are some authors that believe that one can't really put the Atlantic Celts and the Central European Celts in the same bag, the first being autoctonous. Curiously the "La Tene" Celts in Portugal had their major area of influence in the Alentejo (the "Celtici"). Another point I try to make (which can be disputed, of course) is that while there isn't perfect homogeneaty in Iberia, or Portugal particulary, differences seem to be blown out of proportion in some internet forums, more interesting in judging "whiteness" by some dubious criteria. Most studies about Portugal, for example, present the data in 3 regions, show the peculiarities, pinpoint one or another area (Coruche, Alcacer do Sal as examples) and then basically say that the samplings are close enough to use as a whole (btw, you as a Minhoto are of course extremely close to Galicians). Make no mistake: what seems to "bother" some people, probably unsure of their own contribution to Europa as a civilization, is that people are darker, period. You will see people from parts of Portugal with much less admixture than the average of Germany or France being characterized as "off-white" by the completely histerical, anglo-saxon inspired paranoia that thrives especially in the US. Bear in mind that for the English, for example, the Germans, Swedes and Irish weren't "really white". That's what happens when you use a word to mean something complex and give it to people incapable of having complex definitions. As I said before, the Welsh and Irish were called Africans by a XIX english theory. So, while this studies are very interesting, I don't think they will make much difference, well,at least for me they won't, having a superiority complex works wonders in fending off the misconceptions of the uninformed hordes.--Bellum sine bello 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said...You seem to know quite a bit about population genetics. Are you a professional in the genetics field or in physical anthropology? Years ago I planned a career in anthropology (earned a BA in social anthropology and an MA in economic anthropology / development economics), however, I ended up in investment banking...go figure!

One point, the majority of Americans (and I am American as well as Portuguese) are practically brain dead on matters of race and ethnicity. Moreover, a large percentage have a propensity to misclassify people constantly, particularly individuals from the "third world". Many Amerricans know little about and have little interest in their genetic and / or ethnic history (although that is changing somewhat in certain parts of the country). Perhaps it's a sign of some deep paranoia with respect to finding out "unpleasant" information regarding one's roots. Did you know that studies show that perhaps as many as 40% of Virginian whites who trace their ancestors to periods of institutionalized slavery have blacks in their blood line? I'm sure many of these people are uncomfortable with that statistic...I mean, why should they even care...Must be something primal.

I do believe that all human beings are "racist" (depending on how you define the word) to some extent, regardless of how open minded they may be. Humans have a propensity to look FIRST at the DIFFERENCES in others rather than similarities; I have brown eyes and his are green; my nose is long and her's is flat, etc. Perhaps it's a type of defensive mechanism from way back when...

Minhoto


 * I'm not in the field of population genetics, only very inderectly perhaps since my academic background is History and Archaeology, which makes me curious in this matters as I look at those studies not as a be-all-end-all information but as a complement to what I know using classical historigraphic sources. In any event I am weary of using this as an "appeal to authority", the information is there and anybody can have valid opinions with or without academic education. As for the US you are of course right, and a glimpse at the "Hispanic" and "Latino" articles is enough to have a glimpse at the sometimes bewildering definitions... but it's something that is to be expected and explained by the specific immigration trends and history of the US. As for the North American admixture, well, I'm sure that lots could be said but I'm not easily tempted to make broad statements... in the same manner I dislike being "blackwashed" I will not do the same to others. It's of course to be expected that a huge country like the US that has had large contigents of people from all corners of the world has concrete cases of several different admixture, but I'm not one to say that "all US whites are part black and/or indian", because it's not true and one can't extrapolate from some examples the whole population. It's however interesting that people in the US would classify, for example, Val Kilmer (who has recent NA admixture) as "white" while calling Ray Romano, José Maria Aznar or Nelly Furtado "off-white". It's more a sociological phenomenon that anything else really. I hope you understand that I'm not accusing North Americans of anything, it's simply the outcome of specific concepts that are a result of its own history.
 * As for racism, well, it's IMO both a "primal" reaction and a sociological construct.--Bellum sine bello 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Americans essentially look at race and ethnicity from a very narrow and uninformed perspective. It is truly remarkable how many people in the U.S. confuse notions of ethnicity and race. Much of it has to do with a type of frontier mentality that dominates a large part of the country (the exceptions are on the two coasts and larger mid-west cities, such as Chicago). There are so many poorly educated individuals (even some with a bit of higher education) that have little capacity for critical thinking.

Minhoto

Talking about Portuguese hair and eye clolour, I wuold like to add this: First of all I would like to erase the concept of "black hair" and englobe it in the "brown hair" category because jet black hair in Portugal is quiet uncommon. Usually, even the darkest hair shows traces of brown, specially in the sun. So, we can leave the black hair just for Asians and Africans. I say this because I read somewhere that "the European hair goes in various shades of brown, from the lightest (and nearly white) blonde to the "so called black"". It leads to a point where I do not know what my colour hair is because 50% of the people say it is black whereas another 50% say it is brown. All I know is it is dark. Assuming this presumption, I will divide hair colour in the following colours: Blonde, Light Brown, Medium Brown and Dark Brown (as my own). According to this classifications and counting only with natural hair, excluding dyed hair, I wolud say 20% or 50% blondes in Portugal to be a ridiculous number. Belive me, I am Portuguese, I have travelled for all over the country excepting the Islands. I would say that there are areas of Portugal with around 20% blondes like Minho and Douro Litoral but, taking Portugal as a statistical universe, the percentage of blondes would be around 10%. It certainly is between 8 to 13 per cent, being the rest of the population brown haired. It varies regionally averaging much less than 5% in lower Alentejo as in the city of Beja; In the city of Portalegre it is nearly around 5% but no more; In the Lisbon area, if we exclude all the non-ethnic Portuguese, it would reach more than 7% but no more than 12% so it is near the 10% figure; Around the Sado River's mouth if we exclude the non-ethnic Portuguese (who always apear in the genetic studies, inflacionating the high levels of sub-sahran african dna in south Portugal once they are an ostracized comunity since the XVI century of portuguese men who made families with african slaves) the results would be roughly the same as those in Lisbon; Moving Northwards the Tagus River, around the city of Castelo Branco, the blonde minority is more than 10%, circa 12%; In the Serra da Estrela/ Beira Alta Region, the blondes are shlightly more than 15% but they never reach the 18% figure; In the coast, around the area of the city of Leiria, the blondes comprehend shlightly more than 10%; Near the city of Coimbra the percentage of blondes is around 15%; In the area surrounding the city of Aveiro it is between 14 to 17%. In the costal regions North of Aveiro and up until Vila Nova de Gaia, the blondism rate is anormously high, ranging from 18 to 24 per cent, in general, in this zone the blondes are around 20% of the population. In Porto and around it, blondes are between 17 to 21 per cent, being the avarage of 20%; In the Minho region, in the areas of Braga and Guimarães blondes are more than 20% averaging from 19 to 23%; In Galiza (Galicia) blondes are between 17% to 32% of the population, averaging 23% of the total Galician Population. In Trás-ós-Montes the rate of blondism is around the 18% in Vila Real to no more than 16% North of Bragança. In Santarém or Ribatejo regions, I do not have any reliable data. In Algarve (specially costal) blondism is much more common than in Alentejo, it may be between 9 to 14 per cent. So Portugal is not a "blonde" country at all. Portugal has a blonde minority of ethnic Portuguese people which vary regonally. In Portugal blondes are between 8 to 13 per cent of the population where as brown haired people are more than 85% of the Population. So I guess we can say Portugal is 90% burnette and 10% Blonde. Having to guess, I wuold say that 10% of the Portuguese are blonde, 20% have light brown hair, 50% have medium brown hair and 20% have dark brown hair.

Now referring to the eye colour of the Portuguese people, I would say that about 60% have brown eyes, 10 to 15% have blue eyes, 5% have pure green eyes and 25 to 30% have some kind of mix between green and another colour eyes. (I guess its called hazel in English but in vernacular Portuguese it is called green). I have no data for the eye colour. It is only a guess.

DS2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.84.102 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I´m a guy from Vigo, in Southern Galicia. I traveled all the Iberian Peninsula and much of western europe. It is true that you can find some villages in Galicia and north of Portugal 8i dont know the south) where there is a relatively large number of light haired/eyed people. But o the other hand the dark haired/eyed and even skined people seem to be much more numerous in a global approach of the whole area, and i dont mean brown haired people: i mean peolple of the darkest complession you can find in europe, many of them could even seem from morocco in some extreme cases. Actually, you can hardly find any other place in the internal of the iberian peninsula with a similar proportion of dark haired/eyed/skinned people, excepting the south coast of Andalusia, i guess. I found more blondes in Madrid than in some points of Galicia, although it is very difficult to make a comparison, since the rate seems to change a lot from a village to other, and it is difficult to get an objective idea. The only thing i can say with some convintionis that Galicia and northern Portugal are one of the areas traditionally more popolated of the iberian peninsula, where the proportion between native dark-complession popolation has been largest against the number of light haired invasors, who have settled in certain places, what would explain the blondism of some villages. Anyway, i would prefer to have clear data, rather than make such speculations. Where you founded the data you ofered of the hair colour in the different regions of Portugal? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.43.122 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The myth that people in Northern Portugal are distinguishably whiter than those in the South (that's a ~320 kilometer distance - about the same as between Naples and Florence - in a country with a shared history of hundreds - if not thousands - of years) will only end the day that a comprehensive and serious racial study is conducted in this country.

Until that happens, all we have are bogus statistics ("In Trás-ós-Montes the rate of blondism is around the 18% in Vila Real to no more than 16% North of Bragança") and a lot of wishful thinking, writing and rationalizing on the part of the usual bunch of wannabe Swedes.\\

89.152.28.55 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wannabe Swedes? Oh really? In what world do you live? Swedes are not 10% blond as DS2 suggests or 20% blond as the DS2 suggests the Northern Portuguese are. They are around 80 to 90 per cent blond you idiot! Well, it is true that the distance between North and South Portugal is small (by the way it is sure more than 320 km, but never mind) but let History elucidate us. Everybody knowns the Northern Portuguese were "more Celtic" and that the Germanics had their capital in Braga, meanwhile the moors stayed less than 50 years in Braga and more than 500 years in Beja. Rapes were commited, of course. It is valid not only to Portugal but to all the Iberian Peninsula. Go to Vigo and then go to Murcia. Go to Porto and then go to Beja. Wake up man! Your fallacy consists in ignoring the muslim presence. Pardon my French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.21.141 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.213.191 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The map of Frost is completely wrong, central and southern italians have more than 1-19% light eyes , greeks and spaniards are more darker than italians and in peter frost's map they are more light eyes and hair, absurd , these are real maps of pigmentation in italy and europe:

Blond hair in italy

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/38316/2003631590295084685_rs.jpg

Pigmentation hair and eyes Europe

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/39908/2003854802501020027_rs.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.7.10 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are people so hung up on colour. You'd expect that after thousands of years of a sunny climate in southern Europe people would usually be darker. I was at an "Italian" restaurant where I guessed correctly that most of the staff weren't Italian but middle eastern (this happens a lot - also a lot going around calling themselves Spaniards - I always spot them). Then I asked the waiter to guess where I was from "Italian?, perhaps even Maltese". Then I indicated the blue eyed, fair haired woman sitting opposite - "she's of English descent" he said. Did you notice the similarity of facial features, bone structure? I said, and while he looked at me curiously I added "she's my sister". Provocateur (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i'm not obsessionate with the colors, simply the map of frost is ridicolus, is normal that italians are more depigmentated (in the north especially) is due by the location , italy borders with austria and switzerland and spain border with southern france. That's all! But i can tell you that the spaniards are the most purest europeans , they have very little admixture with non caucasoid people as opposed of the Scandinavians who have large mongoloid admixture ,Finns in particular...and anyway is not true that in north-east italy the percentage of light eyes is 50-70 % like Frost say , if the percentage of light eyes in venetia is 70% in scandinavia is 120%!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That map about Europe is nonsense. No way Madrid and Zaragoza are lighter than the North West of the Peninsula. Though it is clear that dark eyes and hair are prodominant in all the Peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.70.176 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The last hair and eye color map cited here is totally absurd. It looks like a 10 year old produced it in his mother's basement. The majority of Italians outside the extreme northern regions of the country are as dark or darker than southern Iberians. The facts are pretty clear: The Portuguese (and Galicians) have about 20-25% blonds in varying shades, while the remainder have dark brown to light brown and auburn hair. Pure redheads are only about 1-2%. Eye color is about 60-70 brown and hazel (brown / green / blue combinations), with blue, green and other shades making up the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.76.155 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for "Portuguese in Barbados???"
Must a be a few people in Barbados who are at least part Portuguese. A fairly large number found their way to Trinidad a couple of hundred years ago...and Barbados is a neighboring country. I'm sure the Barbadian government has some statistics...

????

CaribDigita 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of significant numbers of Portuguese decendants in Bermuda (Azorean) as well as Trinidad, Curaçau, and Guyana (Madeirans). Barbados isn´t known for having a significant Portuguese population although there are some decendants of Portuguese Sephardic Jews who settled their as colonists centuries ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.0.106 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Portuguese ethnicity
Hello everyone. Anyone interested can participate at the discussion going on at Template talk:Portuguese ethnicity - Pictures. Thank you. The Ogre 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese in France
I highly doubt that there are 2,000,000 Portuguese in France. Where is the link for that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs)

Portuguese Foreign Ministry sources place the number of Portuguese in France in the 700,000 range. This number probably doesn´t include some children or grandchildren of Portuguese immigrants who have French nationality and are not counted as Portuguese nationals. The number of Portuguese nationals plus French nationals of Portuguese decent probably goes above 1,000,000 but I really doubt it reaches the 2,000,000 mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.202.72 (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I lived long time in France (I born there), and there is at least more than 1 million of people Portugese of portugese nationality living in France. And if you had to count the children of Portugese or mixed couple which maybe not all have Portugese nationality, believe me you are way above 2 millions. This more like 3 or 3,5 millions people of Portugese. Paris is said to be the city with the most Portuguese in Europe (even ahead of Lisbon) and this is definitely not a joke. Not only in every cities, but also in almost every small village in France you'll find people with portugese origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.229.43 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese not an Iberian People
The only iberian people known is the catalan, which includes the valencia variety of the language. Iberia was the greek word for the latin word Hispania, used relatevely to the parts of the Hispanic Peninsula their were related to, and generally applied only to its mediterranean, nowadays catalanic border. The iberian people is clearly not an ancestor of the galician-portuguese people, who descend from a celtic background lesse influenced by vulgar latins invaders, as Galicia and Portugal were the last parts of the Peninsula romans did occupie.

The word hispanic, or spaniard, and Hispania, or Spain, is the only one to be used by natives of all countrys and kingdoms of the now called "Iberian Peninsula" till the XVIIth and XVIIIth centurys. As to be spaniard is not a cultural, or national, or political word, just a geographic one, like balkanic, european, or scandiavian, those other peninsulas sharing different nations. In XVIIIth century, the coming of the Bourbon family to the castilian throne, the wish to centralise and unified their hispanic nations under a castilianised and uniform notion, bring the word Iberia to scene, as "Spain", and "Spaniard" then become the official word for all nations under a castile rule. Therefore, iberian become, very unfairly, the eufemism to designate the whole of the Peninsula and its nations and different cultures and historys, when one needed to specify Portugal and the Portuguese within the geographical concept. From there, the word iberian was politically abused to show an "Iberian" culture, an Iberian Community, as it helped to centralise and subrodinate culturally and politically, inside Spain and abroad, the non castilians cultures, history, and nations.

What separated latin languages and cultures, over the centurys, is that having a common "father", vulgar latin, they have different "mothers", i.e., different genetic and cultural background of the people who adopted that vulgar latin as the only writen code.

I suggest then that the entry Portuguese People must go off the the group of the "Iberian Peoples and Languages", as in fact galician, and even castilian and basque, should go to, in attention to accuracy of History and truth, out of political purposes or cultural illiteracy. Portuguez 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Portuguese are an Iberian people since they live in the Iberian Peninsula and share cultural, linguistic and ethnic characteristics with the other peoples of the peninsula. Yes, there were a people in ancient times named the iberians, but that is irrelevant to the modern use of "Iberian peoples". Besides, the peoples who inhabited the Algarve were likely Iberian speaking, and it is thought that before the Celtic invasion, all the peninsula spoke Iberian dialects. Even the Celtic speaking tribes from northwestern Iberia were culturally related to the Iberian speaking tribes, as determined by archeological remnants and recognized when it refers to these Celtic tribes from the peninsula as Celtiberians.

The southern French are also not descended from the Franks and they are still French. Identity and culture are not about semantics. As for different genetic background this is clearly not true, as genetic studies have proven beyond doubt that genetic haplotypes are very similar in all the peninsula, from valencia to oporto. 84.90.19.75 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, Iberian happens to be the gentilic correspondent to the peninsular peoples, whether you want it or not. Spanish oh hispanic would be stupid. Joao  pais  22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, Portugal is not Iberian. Iberians were related to Celts? Come on!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.101.177 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many meanings to the word Iberian - The Portuguese are not descendents of the Iberians strictu senso, but they are Iberian only in the moder sense of being from the Iberian Peninsula. This article is in need of urgent improvement - will try to do so in the near future! The Ogre (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In Portuguese these confusion does not occur, because there is a difference between the Iberos (the ancient Iberians in English) and Ibéricos (the modern Iberians in English). The Ogre (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree: Portuguese People are NOT the same as Spanish People and therefore an "Iberian Genetic" section makes no sense.

I find it pathetic that the Spaniards try to manipulate by every means possible here on Wikipedia and everywhere they can the fact that they are the nation with by far the highest Arab, Berber and Jewish blood in Europe. It's so amusing! There is little genetic, ethnic or cultural difference between Portuguese and Galician-Asturian. Portugal got rid of their Moors some 300 years earlier than Spain. Three centuries more of Arab domination is a VERY, VERY long time and ca absolutely not, not have made a HUGE genetic, ethinc, cultural difference between the 2 countries! Just linguistically speaking, Portuguese has about 800 arabic-derived words, Spanish has over 4,000 Arabic words, arabic cuisine (paella being just one of endless others), arabic music and dance (Flamenco)... come on Spain BORDERS with Morocco and haves "enclaves" in Morocco to this day so who are you idiots trying to fool? It's pathetic and sad that Spaniards even try to refute Hispanic these days because they have this historical inferiority complex inbread in them: try and paint their nextdoor neighbour Portugal as "more Moorish". How sick and desperate is that? Get a life you Hispanic arseholes, you are closely related to the Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians... just deal with it :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.229.148 (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed by the incredibly stupid comments posted in the main pages and discussion section. It seems that many people have not matured beyond the age of 11 or 12.

It is quite interesting that no autosomal (determines phenotype) research data has been posted on this site, only haplogroup frequencies, which are only useful with regards to understanding ancient population migrations. The latest Eurogenes Project (EU supported) research shows most clearly that the Portuguese genome is > 87% European, with 22% northern, 37% western and 28% southern European. In addition, the northern Atlantic component amounts to 30%. The Dodecad study also has produced near identical figures. Portuguese are mainly Western European and the autosomal evidence suggests strongly that, on average, they resemble many Atlantic Facade people.

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the great percentage of African haplogroups in Portugal emerged from Mesolithic and Neolithic population movements, not from the Muslim invasions or the slave trade. Stop with the nonsense already. London Hawk (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) London Hawk London Hawk (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Hence the « Homo taganus» reference to the Mesolithic humans that lived in Concheiros of Muge.

People also talk about Romans influence, but that wasn´t really relevant also. Romans were not that mixed with local portuguese, as some people want to believe. They were essentially an elite group.

THe Atlantic facade people point, makes sense, there were migrations, before, during and after the last Ice Age, and Iberian peninsula was a very important Ice Age refugee. Western Europe was also a Celt stronghold against the arrival of other cultures, such as Roman.

Regarding the use and abuse of old baseless sources to make portuguese look physically more Nordic, than they really are, it´s also childish and pathetic to me.

Anyone who lives in Portugal and know Portuguese well, know that´s an absolute crap.

This means, that humans just like any other animal,are modified by the local conditions. Sun radiation, for thousands of years, make people look different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.135.253 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese colonization of the Philippines
I believe I have read that the portuguese colonized parts of the philippines, maybe I'm mistaken and it was the spaniards only. I am asking because I'm trying to do research regarding my gr grandparents. My gr grandfather was said to be filipino from the philippines, yet his surname was Estrada. My gr grandma on the other hand was portuguese from portugal, but I have yet to learn her maiden name. So confusing, lol. 71.234.209.185 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Marissa
 * As far as I know, the Portuguese have never colonised the Philippines. Regarding the surname Estrada, it's not common in Portuguese; it's much more common in Spain. Fsouza 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Marissa, I remember I saw once on a genealogy book that the name Estrada is originally from Galicia, Spain. Having said that, I know some people in Portugal with the same name. Galicians and Portuguese share many common features. Nuno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.139.145 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Portuguese descent in Uruguay???
there is a signifacant NOT ALOT but a pretty large amount of portuguese people in Uruguay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piatti908 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Italians and Spaniards are by far, the largest white groups; the Portuguese are'nt that big!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many people in Uruguay with Portuguese descent. I live in a Brazilian border region, I know many Uruguayans who have Portuguese origin and I know many cities and towns in Uruguay. The telephone books in this country have endless lists os Portuguese surnames (Pereira, Ferreira, Neves, Amaral, Vieira, Rocha, Branco, Lima, Silva, Coelho, Carvalho etc etc) Scheridon (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The three departments of Uruguay that border Brazil are Artigas (78,000 people), Rivera (104,000 people), and Cerro Largo (86,000 people) with a total of less than 300,000 persons, out of a country of 3.6 million people. Even in those border regions I doubt that the Portuguese make more than half the population. Italians and Spaniards are by far the largest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The three largest ethnic groups that occupied the Uruguay are (in order): Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese. Scheridon (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is Spaniards, Italians and Germans in Uruguay; in Argentina, it is Italians, Spaniards, Germans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Germans? I don't think so, but I'll search about it. Scheridon (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People with Portuguese descent are more numerous in the coast region, in the departments of Rocha (Rocha also border Brazil, you forgot), Maldonado and Colonia del Sacramento, colonized by the Azorean Portuguese. Scheridon (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay was 'at times' part of the Portuguese/Brazilian empire of Brazil, though, that in itself does not mean that people fighting under those flags were actually ethnic descendents. The La Plata (The Silver) regions was coveted for many years by Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, with conficts involvoling many foreigners. Giuseppi Garibaldi, as Italian, is propbably the best known example. He fought in Argentina and in two wars in southern Brasil, all in the 'greater' La Plata region. Nonetheless, with Portuguese/ Brazilian making up the bulk of the people in the conflicts against Argentina/ Paraguay, it is most likely that there are a lot of Portuguese descendents in Uruguay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Gabriel Correia (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Last Sentence Silly
"The fact that the most common surnames in Brazil are Portuguese leads one to assume those of Portuguese background predominate in the country." Does that mean Filipino people are mainly of Spanish descent? Absolutely not! The answer is not only descent but history - Brazilian black and indigenous people ended up being given or adopting Portuguese names when enslaved, conquered or religiously converted. Provocateur (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Last Sentence Silly--79.2.242.65 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing article
This article was very confusing. It was talking about many things, such as the differences between Northern and Southern Europeans. Who cares about it?

This is article is about the Portuguese people, and it didn't talk about it. I reverted to an old version of the article (which was erased in the past with no explanation). This version does talk about the Portuguese ethnicity and makes the reader understand it. Opinoso (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Iberians
Ogre, you have greatly skewed and misinterpreted the data about Iberians. The Iberians did have a largely Neolithic, east Mediterranean origin, hence why they most densely settled along the Catalan coast. The Portuguese are not simply descended from the Paleolithic settlers and the Iberians were not merely a local development from these settlers. If this were the case, Portuguese would look strikinly different in appearance than they do. Ireland and Wales have thehighest degree of Paleolithic ancestry in Europe apart from the Basques but these people again look strikingly different. The Neolithic-era Mediterranean settlers was a massive movement of peoples and they gave one of the largest imapacts into Southern European populations and are responsible for the common, darker Mediterranean features among the Iberians, Occitans (southern French), Italians and Greeks. This is shown i ngenetic studies and the Neolithic-era genetic markers are most common in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. Portuguese are a mainly descended from Celtiberians like the the Lusitanians which I know you agree with. The Iberian component though was a mix of the Iberians themselves and pre-Neolithic inidigenous inhabitants of Iberia (original Paleolithic settlers). Epf (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing you, Epf (by the way, please stop introducing the map you're introducing everywhere - it has serious big errors and is not sourced; please come to the Commons page for the other map and help us try to improve it!), and do feel free (of course!), to introduce the corrections you feel are needed, but remember, that you can not call the Pre-Indo-Europeans of Portugal (as well in other zones of Iberia), Iberians! They did not speak an Iberian language as far as we know (and when we know, as Tartessian or Aquitanian, it was not Iberian). Also regarding the Neolithic component in Portuguese populations, do remember that, given the regional variance in Iberia, data must be specific to Portugal. I'm leaving the corrections you introduced, but changing "Iberians" to "Pre-Indo-Europeans (such as, in other parts of Iberia, the Iberians, Tartessians and Aquitanians)". Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, Lusitanias were not Celtiberians, they were most probably re or Proto-Celts, and if Celts (as some defend), of a totally different group from the Celtiberians. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetic studies
It seems ALL wiki articles and sections on genetic ancestry of some European groups, specially Western Europeans, are written by the same team of editors: they all reference Oppenheimer's or Syke's hypotheses as such they were uncontroversial, accepted-by-all-researchers facts, and no opposite point of view is presented. -- Curiously such articles contrast some other wiki texts. This article reads: "The earliest modern humans inhabiting Portugal are believed to have been Paleolithic peoples that may have arrived in the Iberian Peninsula as early as 35,000-40,000 years ago." According to Oppenheimer, the paternal lineage which marks those Paleolithic peoples is the R1b Y-chromosome haplotype. However, at the Haplogroup R article, we find that this haplogroup is speculated to have ocurred "in Northwest Asia between 30,000 and 35,000 years ago." Well... R1b arrived at Iberian Peninsula 35,000-40,000, however, its grandparent R* might have originated 5,000 to 10,000 later? The article further continues: "Experts such as Barry Cunliffe, Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer have put forward theories, supported by genetic and archaeological studies" I can't really argue on archealogical grounds, but genetic data do not support Oppenheimer's hypothesis that there's a close link between Basques and Celtic-speaking peoples, and they do not support the theory that R1b expanded to Europe from Iberia, based on the hypothesis that Iberia was a refugium from which modern humans expanded after the last Ice Age, as R1b is measured to be older as one moves east from Western Europe. Genetic data argue that r1b expanded from the east to the west, not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.171.64 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC) --

Ha, ha, ha, ha. Jan.

Portuguese ancestry of brazilian people
Why is it so emphasized in this article? Why not move it to the brazilian people article and mention it the same way as portuguese descendents in other countries are mentioned? Why are the brazilians so important? We don't go into so much detail about French-Portuguese, or Angolans, etc.. Recently there have a been a lot of Italians immirating to Brazil, do you see a section about it in the talian article? Not even the portuguese language article goes into so much detail about it...


 * Brazil was the main destination of Portuguese immigrants for over 4 centuries. Moreover, Brazil is the only country in the world where a majority of the population have Portuguese ancestry.

So, it is not possible to compare the huge impact of the Portuguese immigration to Brazil to the minor impact in France or Angola.

It's not a matter that "why are Brazilians so important". It is a matter of History. Opinoso (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.213.191 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1 million Portuguese in Brazil?
Where did you people take this number from? According to the 2000 census, there were 213,203 Portuguese in Brazil.

By the way, it is a complete nonsense to claim 1 million Portuguese in Brazil and over 1,300,000 in the US. The United States never had more Portuguese than Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Opinoso. The data I know, albeit from 1999, is taken from the Direcção Geral dos Assuntos Consulares e Comunidades Portuguesas do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (1999), Dados Estatísticos sobre as Comunidades Portuguesas, IC/CP - DGACCP/DAX/DID - Maio 1999. The Ogre (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a decent source, however, it is still nonsense to claim more Portuguese in the USA than in Brazil.

What are these 1 million Portuguese in Brazil from? According to 2000 census, there are only 213,203 Portuguese in Brazil. Is it also counting Brazilians with Portuguese citizenship?

I really doubt there are 800,000 Brazilians born people with Portuguese citizenship. This number is too big. It's like imagining 1 million people from Brazil can move to Portugal tomorrow, because they are Portuguese citizens. Does not make any sense. Opinoso (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1,153,351 Americans in the USA is also counting the Portuguese AND descendants there. Because if there are 1,153,351 Portuguese born people in the USA, it's like 11% of Portugal's population is living in the USA, which is also nonsense.

But, if we also count the Portuguese and their descendants in Brazil, we will not have that number, and it is explained in the article why. Opinoso (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry or Nationality?
A previous comment states that most people in the world today probably have at least one portuguese ancestor from the last millenium. Considering Portugal's colonial history, it is plausible. However, this same logic could just as well be applied to other nationalities and ethnicities, including those of other former empires, i.e. Chinese, Roman (Italian), Greek, Arab, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, etc. African ancestry can also be claimed by many due to the Arab and Trans-Atlantic slave trades. If every other article describing specific peoples relied on this logic, then just about every group discussed would surpass or come close to 1 billion.

This is certainly not the case, as most articles are focused on nationality and ethnicity as well as verifiable, self-identified ancestry.

Unlike most other articles, this one seems to focus more on the Portuguese as a nationality rather than an ethnicity. So perhaps either a different article concerning the Portuguese ancestral diaspora should be created or the other articles on other peoples should be remade to focus more on nationality rather that ethnicity. M5891 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Related People to the Portuguese
According to this map (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html) generated by geneticists Manfred Kayser, of the University of Erasmus in the Netherlands, the Portuguese are related to Spaniards and Italians, and not too far off from the French, yet some seem to be missing on the Portuguese article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.207.146 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A good reason is that genetic relatedness isn't the only (or perhaps the most important) relatedness. Velho (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups
I changed "related ethnic groups" in the main box. The former version didn't seem to use any recognizable valid criterion. Actually, the subject is itself suspect: what is a "related ethnic group"? I used geographic closeness (to include Western Europe and North Africa), and linguistic closeness (to include other Portuguese speaking and Romance speaking peoples). Galicians and other Spaniards deserve a special mention on both criteria. In any case, it would be wrong to reduce "ethnical relatedness" to "genetic relatedness". Velho (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on... North Africans and Sephardic Jews? Give me a break, do Germans appear as related to Askenazi? Do Greeks appear related to Turks? Come on... You know what this is about! The Ogre (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But how can we remove Sephardic Jews? They speak (spoke) an Iberian language. And how can we deny some relation to the Arab World? There are several hundreds of words (including toponyms) of Arabic origin in Portuguese (and Spanish). The Moors stayed in the Peninsula for eight centuries... And the article already says that there is "some genetic relationship" to "North Africa". I still think that the best thing is to keep them all. But we can also just remove this item ("related peoples"). And we can add Turks to Greeks, Greeks to Turks, Ashkenazi to Russians... Velho (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article of Spanish people, "whites" latin-americans
Are contabilizated with "spaniards" descents, because in the article of portuguese people, "white" brazilians not are related with portuguese ancestors. Why??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.54.68 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry from Separadic Jews and Phoenician
There is a reference in the article according which the finding of Jewish contribution to Iberian people is in contradiction to other studies and is unsupported by historiography  (strange, e.g., what about the "Marranos"?). The references were cited to support this idea do not represent most scientific data about the genetical origins of Iberian people. In particular, the argue that Jewish ancestry is in contradiction with Phoenician one is given without source to support it and may, in effect, reflect a POV. Actually, Hebrew is considered to be the closest language to Phoenician (60% similarity according to studies in linguistics) and present day Jews share high genetical similarities with populations that are considered to be descendant from Phoenicians (i.e., Lebanese, Tunisian and Syrian people)and these similarities resulted from the Phoenician contributions to these populations and not from the Arab ones. Funny enouge, this study was cited here as an evidence to the absence of Jewish genes in the Portuguese genom, however it exclude any contribution came out of  the Levant region to Iberian people, while Phoenicians were undoubtly from the Levant. So it seems that a more serious review is needed.--Gilisa (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I came over the sources provided and it seem that they give only a week support, if any, to the idea of no Jewish contribution to the PP genome: This study compared Iberian who live in Iberia with Spanish Americans who are a direct decedents of Iberian people and found no paternal difference between these two groups even they were isolated for hundreds of years in some of the cases. On the contrary it found the Jewish people are significantly different from both Iberian groups in the study and infer with recklessness that Jews gave no paternal contribution to the Iberian people. However, this study was done before the study that reveled the genetic paternal connection and hence made a gross comparison without being able to take into account the 20% of similarity. Of course, there is always a significant difference between two population which are not 100% the same. This became markedly evident when study is based upon Y-chromosome haplogroup "frequencies". For example, even that Iberians have Greek ancestry the two groups were found to be significantly different to an extent that made it possible to place them in different branch at the European ancestral tree. The same is valid here-American Iberians are 100% Spanish people but only 20% Jewish so there were significant differences –but this article does not pretend to rule out the present one results, instead it explicitly tell: " For these three major clades of Y-chromosome variation (Hg E, Hg J, and M9), which encompass most of the Y chromosomes of the populations of interest in our study,  Iberian and Spanish-American Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies are indistinguishable except for a small contribution by indigenous Americans to the Spanish-American gene pool. On the other hand, Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies of Jewish populations deviate substantially from those of Iberian/Spanish-American populations.estimate the Iberians Jewish ansectry." And even that this study didn't find 20% similarity it conclude : Although Spanish-Americans undoubtedly have some Jewish ancestry, they appear to have no more than do Iberians". Clearly, the one who inserted this wording to the section of Middle Eastern origin is not familiar with genetical studies and statistical procedures. More, it was claimed that the findings are contradicting with Historiography but the same study  that was cited to refute Jewish and Iberian genetic relations is opened with these exact words:" Jews were among the first Roman settlers in Iberia, hence Jewish ancestry comprises a component of Iberian heritage (Gonc¸alves et al. 2005; Neulander "in press"). After approximately 1400 years of Jewish presence, in the year 1391 CE, anti-Jewish riots erupted in Spain. A substantial number of Spanish Jews were killed or forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism. By 1415 the offspring of these converts (conversos) were assimilated into the Church. "

This source have nothing to tell about the Jewish mitochondrial ancestry that PP may have or not and again focused on few clusters (and it's because every cluster include many variations, caused by random mutations, that no study can examine all known clusters) --Gilisa (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

‏‏

Portuguese people in Brazil
It would be appropriate to write the statistics for Portuguese people in Brazil as c.191,000,000 as the vast majority of Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestry. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it would not. Having Portuguese ancestry is not the same as being Portuguese. They are Brazilians. The Ogre (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And also, how do you know that 191 million Brazilians (all Brazilians?) have Portuguese ancestry? Not all Brazilians have Portuguese ancestry and, of course, it does not make a person Portuguese because their great-grandfather was Portuguese. Opinoso (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright,lets say it is uncountable as the vast majority of brazillians have Portuguese ancestry. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese people in Brazil
The Ogre,you're wrong.Portuguese people who live in Brazil claim Portuguese ancestry,it might not be Portuguese citizenship.Portuguese people in Brazil are Portuguese born citizen with Brazilian citizenship or a Brazilian born citizen of Portuguese ancestry or citizenship If everyone goes to the wikipedia article-Portuguese Brazilians,you will see No available figures. The vast majority of Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestry. I think it would be appropriate to put it as ??,no available statistics or uncountable. Opinoso, your view is very flawed. For instance, look at Italian Argentines. It is said on the wikipedia page that it is 60%. This might be weird in a predominantly Spanish country, but it is stated that this is mixed with other ancestries, such as Spanish, German, French,etc. This also applies to Portuguese Brazilians; As long you have a Portuguese ancestor, then you are a Portuguese Brazilian, which is uncountable. L&#39;Ours et lune (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Portuguese Brazilians are a specific ethnic category in Brazil. They are not Portuguese, but Brazilians. There is a specific article for them, go there not here, where there already exists a section dealing with the issu. Anyway, do you have a credible published source stating one should count almost all Brazilians as Portuguese? I doubt it! The Ogre (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a cusiosity, did you known that George W. Bush is descendent from the first king of Portugal Afonso Henriques? Does that make him a Portuguese American? Come on... The Ogre (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese Brazilians
Just edited the numbers on Portuguese Brazilians, as the truth is that there are ''no official figures about how many Brazilians have Portuguese roots. This is mainly because the immigration to Brazil from Portugal is very old, making it almost impossible to find correct numbers.'' L&#39;Ours et lune (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I just reversed you. This is not about how many Brazilian have Portuguese ancestry, but about how many Portuguese there are in Brazil. The Ogre (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about:
Putting Figo or Cristiano Ronaldo in the pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.4.22 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese and Galicians not especially related
With the exception of north Portuguese the relationship between Portuguese and Galicians is linguistic, not ethnic, the result of the political domination of the rest of Portugal by northern Portugese reconquista forces.
 * You must be delirious... Your understanding of population identities is not only wrong, but archaic. Portuguese and Spaniards (all of them!) are closely related. Portuguese (all of them) are specialy related to Galicians, even if only because their respective languages are basically the same! And your ideias that there is an unsurpassable ethnic difference between northern and southern Portuguese is just laughable! The Ogre (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it is true Iberians are very closely related, but you keep marking out the Galicians, but as I say, they are not any closer to the Portuguese ethnically than, say, the Extremadurans. Indeed, they even look very much like the Portuguese of the region near them. Yes I was exagerating, but to make a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.54.47 (talk • contribs)
 * OK, if the Galicians are to be especially marked out from Spaniards, as they are very close to northern Portuguese, (in ancestry, way of life, even appearance), then we should also mention the Extremadurans and Andalusians who are close to the more southerly parts of Portugal and more resemble the Portuguese in those areas. This also helps highlight the diversity native to Portugal itself. For when I see a performance of Fado I certainly do not think of Galicia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.54.47 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! You are wrong. Galicians and Portuguese speak pratically the same language (this has nothing to do with supposed way of life, ancestry and appearance! What is the similarity between the way of life of someone from Porto and someone from rural Galicia, or someone from A Corunha and someone from rural Trás-os-Montes? And there are no visible and social significant differences in ancestry and appearance between any modern Iberian population). Extremadurans and Andalusians may live near the south of Portugal, but they do not speak Portuguese (which Galician pratically is, or the reverse, they do not speak Galician, which Portuguese pratically is). The diversity native to Portugal is certainly a cultural one (as such there are also differences internal to the north or south of the country, as well as between the interior and the litoral regions, mountain and planes regions, etc...). And it is not with stereotypical generalizations about Fado (a form of song typical of Lisbon only, even of it has been elevated to national song by the authoritarian Estado Novo) or other cultural traits that you prove your point. What could be more cultural significant than to speak almost the same language? And do notice that Spaniards, as a whole, are present in the related entry. Please stop your POV edits, based on misguided and arhaic ideas about ancestry, appearance (this all smells like race...) and supposed way of life. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A linguistic affilitation is not the same as an ethnic one. An extreme example will highlight this: Nigerians speak English, do we include them as a related people to the English? As for "race" Galicians and Portuguese are Iberians - genetically identical with only the tiniest local variations from one locality, to another even within each country. Typical "looks" can be different since if populations are very stable over a very long time, they then develop what we can, for want of a better expression, a "family appearance" (take a look at the pictures of the conquistadors born in Extremadura and compare them with famous Portuguese explorers), and this has nothing to with looks of different races (ie: east Asian v Caucasian v west African etc). And while there are no significant differences among Iberians, there are enough at the group level for the sharp eyed (I've been told I'm not of Spanish origin because I don't look like the Andalusians this person saw when they visited the country - by the way, my ancestry is entirely Galician). When i was in Galicia three years ago I could pick out quite a few Portuguese, but not those from the north, although of course there are some northerners that can be taken for southerners and vice versa. Anyway, I've made my point, even if I did have to strongly exaggerate to make it - as I was saying, a linguistic connection is not the same as an ethnic one, and yes it is a cultural relation, but it is insufficient in itself to claim a close ethnic connection, and its importance as such is too often overblown. I think this is one of those arguments about degrees and not absolutes. Have a good new year Ogre. Adeus.

Portuguese nationality issue
The Talk:Nelly Furtado comes with a pertinent question I hope someone is willing to clarify. Do we have two kinds of portuguese, the ethnics and the citizens? Are there any more kinds of portuguese not listed in the portuguese constituition we should be aware of when called portuguese? I know there are the thousands of portuguese descents all over the world, the ethnic portuguese all over the world, the naturalized portuguese all over the world and the wanna be portuguese all over the world. But what is the difference between them? I am baffled by the technicalities and the complexity of the ethnonym portuguese. Can some one enlighten? Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.73.226 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado no is Portuguese she is Canadian and of azoriano parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.193.183 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

i agree. this is fustratating. i just want to know what we fall under? caucasion? hispanic? other? when someone asks me what is portuguese. i always say.. portuguese! because i have no refrences to turn to. my family is from portugal and i am an american. when i ask my family, they all give me diffrent answers.. some say "we're not white" some say we are, some say hispanic, some say "just tell people european or azorian" haha.. it sounds funny but i am really fustrated. if my own native portuguese family cant give me a straight answer.. how will i ever know??? help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.188.116 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Genetic history of the Iberian peninsula.

 * This discussion is also taking place at Talk:Spanish people.

Considering the permanent reversions of content in the Genetics section of both this article and the Spanish people article (editions looking forward to differentiate between the genetic background of Iberian populations), and considering that the Genetics sections of both articles are almost identical, with only a few minor divergences, I think it is time to create a Genetic history of the Iberian peninsula common article, and redirect from here. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to desagree. All "people articles" tend to have a genetics sections, and so should the Portuguese and Spanish ones also have. Of course that article could be created, and the stuff in these 2 articles somewhat sumarized. But those sumaries should remain. The Ogre (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dicussion and votation taking place at Talk:Spanish people. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

totally agree: Portuguese People are NOT the same as Spanish People and therefore an "Iberian Genetic" section makes no sense. I find it pathetic that the Spaniards try to manipulate by every means possible here on Wikipedia and everywhere they can the fact that they are the nation with by far the highest Arab, Berber and Jewish blood in Europe. It's so amusing! There is little genetic, ethnic or cultural difference between Portuguese and Galician-Asturian. Portugal got rid of their Moors some 300 years earlier than Spain, Spanish has over 4,000 Arabic words, arabic cuisine (paella being just one of endless others), arabic music and dance (Flamenco)... come on Spain BORDERS with Morocco and haves "enclaves" in Morocco to this day so who are you idiots trying to fool? It's pathetic and sad that Spaniards even try to refute Hispanic these days because they have this historical inferiority complex inbread in them: try and paint their nextdoor neighbour Portugal as "more Moorish". How sick and desperate is that? Get a life you Hispanic arseholes, you are closely related to the Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians... just deal with it :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.229.148 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Obsession about "Whiteness as opposed to Moorness or Middle-Easternness"
I see here a lot of prejudice:

Some of the posts are from Spaniards who appear to have an historical issue with the undeniable Muslim heritage which is an integral part of Spain as we know it. No point trying to deny or demise facts- just accept them and celebrate the good things about this uniqueness.

Some of the posts are from people who appear to believe that a nation's genetics defines its ranking in terms of more or less good or bad, depending on how much more White or less White its population. And in that Whiteness or less Whiteness, they seem to believe their nation is better or worse than others- again another serious issue.

Portugal has definitely less Muslim influences than Spain in all aspects: language, culture, architecture and one assumes, genetics too. This is the logical think as historically Spain was dominated and occupied by the Muslims a few centuries longer, and geographically is much closer to Northern Africa than any other European nation. Does this make the Portuguese better or worse than the Spanish? I think it defines them simply as different. Portuguese, Galicians and Asturians have very little difference- there's absolutely no denying that.

I have travelled the world and don't think the Portuguese have as much Muslim influence as for instance the Balkan nations: Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece or even Eastern Romania have. Neither has Spain for that matter, apart from the historical legacy which you find in monuments, some foods, some music and some lingusitic traits. Their way of life and reality as nations is mostly European, and has always been. Again, half of Italy spoke a derivation of Arabic, almost the same as today's Maltese which was only replaced by Italian in the 16th century. And do southern Italians differ that much from their Tunisian or Algerian neighbours? Not that much. In fact, a lot of Southern Europe was part of the Roman Empire along with Northern Africa and the Middle-East for many centuries, and naturally people must have intermarried and communicated and lived in a very similar way, influencing one another in their culture an everyday lives.

Then we have the African issue and the slavery whereby some national rivalries show: the Brits point the finger at the Portuguese as being the worst and forgetting that all Portugal, Britain, France, Spain, Holland trded slaves wherever they went and wherever they settled their colonies. Historically, European males tended to have intercourse with slave females and naturally some left "coloured or mulatto" children everywhere they went too. The Americas are living proof of the so-called melting pot between Indians, Whites, Blacks and others. This obsession from Europe trying to be "pure White" and distance themselves from the "Moors/Arabs" or non-Europeans only shows Human primeval instincts: I am better than you, therefore you are not related to me in any way.

Why do humans have this instinct of competitiveness and go to any lengths just to try and prove a point... being right or wrong, I wonder! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immediate (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

''The reason for this is because Middle Eastern genetics in southern Europe has been vastly overstated. It is true that Portugal and Spain however have the largest Middle Eastern genetic contribution, and to deny that would'nt be right, but at the same time, there are other contributions to the Iberian people including Celtic tribes, Romans among others. Southern Italians are not as close to Tunsians and Algerians at all as you state; half of southern Italy never spoke Arabic. Arabs had a concrete hold on Sicily for 200 years and isolated pockets in Puglia for 80 years, compared to 500 years for Portugal and 700 years for Spain hence why the Iberian peninsula has been more heavily impacted by MtDNA. Geneticist have found that Sicilians for example are a combination of ancient Italic tribes, Greeks, Romans and northern Italians with a 7% North African contribution, and North African contribution for southern Italy under 3% and 2% in the North, definitely not as much as one might state. And at the end of the day, even the platinum blondes of Eastern Slavic Europe i.e. Ukraine even have Moorish genetic rates similar to Italy so it all doesnt even matter. ~Galati

Parts of the above quotation are just plain wrong, and I would be willing to bet the (likely insecure) author is well aware of it. Pure nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of knowledgeable people.

It is well known that Iberians DO NOT have the largest Middle Eastern genetic contribution in Europe, not even close. Look at all the recent autosomal DNA studies (Behar, 21010, Eurogenes, Dodecad...) that show just between 1.5 and 3 % Southwest Asian (Middle Eastern) contributions, and in the range of 3 and 6% Northwest African. Spaniards and Portuguese average between 86 and 91% European in autosomal testing, right in line with oher Western European countries and substantially higher than populations in south-central and eastern Mediterranean Europe - review the figures for places like Greece, Italy, Albania, Malta, Bulgaria, etc. The hard facts indicate that Iberians are intermediate between northern and southern groups, clustering with, between or near the French and Northern Italians. London Hawk (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese cluster not only among Northern Italians and the French, but also among southern Italians, and Spaniards. Genetic map of Europe from Manfred Kayser of Erasmus University in the Netherlands: [ http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/geneticmapofeurope.jpg]. Southern Italians and northern Italians also through this study show that they are not estranged from one another but the most related to one another.

The LATEST autosomal DNA research (including Eurogenes, Dodecad) shows clearly with whom Portuguese cluster: primarily French, Spaniards and Northern Italians. To suggest, as you have, that Iberians show the largest percentage of Middle-Eastern genetic input in Europe is completely false, and I'm certain you know it. Check the latest autosomal scores on Dodecad - educate yourself and stick to the facts. And, yes, from my experience mulattos and mestizos are some of the most racially insecure people around. London Hawk (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Can only imagine what would make a mulatto so insecure...because if its in their blackness or whiteness, well that would be a conflict of interest would'nt it; what does it matter if Portuguese people are white or not; it sounds a lot more that you are insecure. Let me guess, you're Portuguese and sick and tired of being called non-white. Your pathetic! 04:10, 10 February 2012 Galat

No, I'm not Portuguese but am very familiar with the country and its people since I worked there for ten years. I'm sure you know next to zero about Portugal so why are you commenting? Accuracy matters when you are dealing with ethnicities. It's insulting to label someone something they are not. You, I'm sure, would agree with that.76.21.188.20 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well as a Geography minor I know a lot about Portugal; not any person is just going to come on an ethnicity page and comment. No one labelled a Portuguese individual as North African, please reread above. People rather were commenting on genetic contribution. There was no need for the insult you swung my way. I take it you are a smart individual so you and I both know that for example, that if a certain ethnic group has 2.7-10% genetic contribution from North Africa does not make that person Middle Eastern. Come on now! You flew off the handle when I brought up a genetic study in 2008, by Manfred Keyser a geneticist from Erasmus University which took samples of native individuals from people all across Europe. There is a north central Italian sample from the Marche region, a south-central Italian sample from the Campania region, along with a sample from Lisbon, Portugal. While southern Italy does cluster with Balkan populations such as Romanians, and former Yugoslavs (i.e. Serbs, Croats, Macedonians), the sample neatly subsumes the northern Italian sample meaning that both northern and southern Italians are strong similar, as well overlapping slightly with the French, and overlapping considerably with the Portuguese and Spaniards. The MAP here There was no need to go off like you did, but hey when your passionate about something as you are, anything can be said. Galati (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Portuguese people.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Sorry buddy, I'm not Portuguese but French and Irish. I know Portugal only too well having worked there for ten years. What I dislike are people who twist the facts about certain ethnicities. Satisfied?76.21.188.20 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect population statistics?
How can it be claimed that there are 31.2 million portugese people in the world when all the numbers of portugese people below that figure add up only to just over 20 million? Some numbers here have to be incorrect, so what is it?

--174.62.122.229 (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical Origins
For some reason this Investigation of Slavic Populations is cited in a statement completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Whoever put it there, do you have an explanation for why it is there? (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Irrelevant? It has to do with the migrations of 409 to the Iberian peninsula (alans, vandals, visigoths suebi and buri )and their previous mixture with slavs ( Przeworsk culture and Wielbark culture ) and with the saqaliba and the regulos eslavos of the iberian peninsula (slavic kingdoms of the iberian peninsula) [].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.22.150.97 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese and Galicians (and alongside Spain) who has given up so much discussion
There are no major differences between Iberian nations - and between these and the western European and west Mediterranean nations to a second level, but there are ethno-linguistic differences between them - in the Iberian group of nations. The Portuguese people as a whole and its nobility, in their clear majority originated in ancient Portucale (north of Portugal, former southern Galician peoples), populated massively the Center-South and South of Portugal. In Évora, Beja, in Extremoz, Vila Viçosa they set up the House of Avis, the House-branch of Avis-Beja, the House of Avis-Bragança as a whole, and all around her (and in these regions) the old Portucalense nobility, as many people in general, set a major place in the Middle Ages and populated the region.

Of course, despite this, except areas like Lisbon (target of constant migrations from the north and from the interior and even from the Isles and all the country), or the Algarve coast (about Continental Portugal) the North litoral remained, through its geography, the most populous, and despite having been the main donor of populations for the rest of Continental country since the reconquista - and even then to Brazil for example, after the Age of Discovery (not the only one, as the center, the south, the Azores and Madeira also have contributed, but the most numerous on that colonization). And the Northern Interior and the Alentejo (Alentejo with much more population in the 15th and 16th centuries in the context of the nation at that time than today) had a more recent emigration abroad and to the litoral.

Apart some contacts and links in the raia (frontier) as normal (not so many as in the northern raia) and despite the fact that the Alentejo shares more geography with the Spanish western Extremadura and even some customs, architecture (but with national Portuguese differences: Manueline etc.) and some ways of the south, there are fundamental aspects which connects more Alentejo to the Beiras, to the North and even to Galicia, than to the Spanish lands beyond its frontier (And Algarve isn´t even identical to Western Andalusia in geography or even cultures, besides the other differences). And if we confine only to geography as exemple, the question is not so linear, since, apart the gradual climatic or other differences, there is a common western north-south Atlanticism through the human culture and spirit that come from the Megalithic Eras (and coastal Iberia and western European coasts and not only).

Iberian nations such as Portugal are a fusion of settlement from the north with the local moçabarism and other populations. If that was not enough, the Docs. and the events themselves, we see that the old North Portucale shares all its Surnames with the Southern Portugal (And the same consequently genealogy) - and see Geneaal Portugal, the Torre do Tombo etc. or historical families genealogy - Apart from one reform of surnames in the nineteenth century, that does not changed the overall picture. Portugal is the same clans from north to south. The old or ancient families, surnames and genealogy consequent spread throughout the country and multiplied, from Middle Ages to nowadays (as we know very well). Interestingly in this area of ​​Surnames etc. the North of Portugal shares much less with Galicia and is fully identical to the Center and South of Portugal.

The difference Portuguese or Galician-Portuguese verses other east Iberian group or groups (Leonese; Leonese-Castillian or Castillian and the others) is not just a matter of language, is a matter of people. But there were almost 1000 years of history in Portugal and Spain since the start of the Second Millenium. Migrations, Settlements etc.. By the way, the Spanish Conquistadores of Extremadura like Cortés, Pizarro, Orellana, Balboa, De Sotto, Valdivia (some cousins) born there - They were in major part descended of Leonese-Galician-Asturian-Basque and Castilian families? Yeah.

If we see, mostly house branchs and all nobility in Alentejo, Ribatejo, Lisbon etc. (And I´m referring only to individuals born in South-Central and South Portugal at the time) in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, houses and surnames, were largely or entirely of old Portucalense origin in their northern ancestors (and even mostly "common" people, were part or entirely from northern ancient roots) as we see in the records, genealogies, parishes(more after King João III sensus), etc. India Armadas, surnames, family connections (clear or less clear), Chronicles of the Middle Ages before (Lopes and others before and after), Renaissance (Barros, Resende, Correia, Castanheda etc.), searching for names and family connections, eventual or proved; and Docs. before, since the Fundation of the Kingdom and King Afonso I.

Even remarkable exceptional Galician branchs that came populate Portugal since the 1st Dinasty and then coming from Galicia (but Galicia the territory currently in Spain, already separated of the newborn Kingdom of Portugal) as Souttomaior(more in the North), Andrade, Nova (partly Galician the name, as also Portuguese from old, but we are refering the Galician ones), Garcia (of Galician and even Basque origin before) or the Castro, they came to all Portugal, especially Garcia, Andrade and others, Portuguese naturals since the Middle Ages and today from the north to south of Portugal (born in all regions), or even cases as the Castro, already in the fourteenth and fifteenth century (late Middle Ages) virtually mostly born in the Center and Southern Portugal, among others, following the Court and other families. The Castro became especially at higher degree naturals of Lisbon areas, Center-South and Alentejo. The Castros (Galician-Portuguese origin) in the 16th century already had several generations in Sintra.

For the rest, we know that the North of Portugal populated massively the South of this country after the Reconquista - and made up villages, cities, castles, Forais in large scale - as exemple from 3 or 4 centers in Alentejo, passed to the tens and to hundreds, from King Afonso Henriques´s son to King João I - above all by the work of the kings of the 1st Dynasty, but after also. King Sancho I and King Dinis were most evidenced by the number and work in this field, but all of that 1th dynasty work greatly in this area (Beiras, Alentejo and other regions etc.). --LuzoGraal (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rural/ urban difference between Portuguese/ other immigrants
I removed the information found in brackets about Portuguese immigrants being attracted to urban centres "(which made them different from other immigrants in Brazil, who were attracted to rural areas of the country)". This statement cannot be a mere aside/ by the way etc: reasons why other immigrants went to rural areas was not one of choice, but of government to government agreements (via agents in some cases [German to Paraná State]), in specific with regard to the immigration of Italian, Japanese and Germans immigrants to the south/ south-east and south-centre of the country. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced bullshit in infobox
The infobox says that 7% of the Portuguese are Muslim or Jewish. Absolute shite. Brazil and Portugal are the only two countries with an eight or nine figure Portuguese population and there Islam and Judaism are miniscule, especially with the ethnic Portuguese. Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox does NOT say that "7% of the Portuguese are Muslim or Jewish" - it says "7% other religions (mainly Judaism, Islam)". However, I agree with you, this figure does not look right - 7% = 700,000 people, if Jews and Muslims are the biggest groups within this 700,000, and they together account for about 65,000, it means that other small groups must make up the remaining 635,000 - which would mean a lot of tiny groups. Is this likely?

At any rate, I undid your reversal, as it resulted in broken links and refs. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That 7% number would include a lot more than just Judaism and Brazil. Brazil has lots of other non-Christian religions, such as Spiritism and Seicho-no-Ie and many persons of Portuguese descent in Brazil practice them. There are even substantial numbers of practitioners of the Afro-Brazilian religions such as Candomblé and Macumba amongst the Portuguese-Brazilian crowd. Spiritism probably has the largest number of adherents in Brazil of those religions that I've listed would be the biggest group. I've added that to the info box as well.Goodsdrew (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Until you have census data from every Portuguese community on Eatth to justify those random numbers, the only fact is that they are predominantly Catholic. That's all that's required really. Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

something wrong with the "ref /ref" - can someone fix this?
I just added 2011 Census figures on religion, but something is not working. Can someone spot the problem? Thanks Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So there's no black-haired people in Portugal?
First of all, this section gives all these statistics but no sourcing. In addition, I'm not sure I buy all of this, though I'm not some verified expert on the matter so I thought I'd leave a note here and see what people thought. The section doesn't even mention black-haired portuguese people, as if they don't exist. Supposedly some 20% are blond and then more are gingers and the rest are medium brown... but where are the raven-haired ones? I know some Portuguese people and I'd say the overwhelming majority are completely black-haired or so dark brown that you can only tell its really brown in intense sunlight. Admittedly I've never been to the country, and I don't deny the existence of these Portuguese blonds and redheads somewhere in the world, its just most of the ones I've seen are black-haired and the page acts like they don't exist at all. I suspect that this probably has to do with Portuguese editors who view themselves as Europeans (after all, they are) and want to de-emphasize the fact that a lot of Portuguese can be fairly dark and don't look so different from many other Mediterranean peoples (both the north and south shores) who happen to be Muslim, because they look down on these other Mediterraneans and want to be seen as being more similar to Central/Northern Europeans (who have the same religion). I suppose historical animosities can also play a role. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Portuguese people or the way they look (I actually think they're fairly good-looking, at least the ones I know :) ), I'm just not sure about the description on this page.--Yalens (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I decided to look into your problem. I found this.

Dark hair (Black and Dark Brown) accounts for 40-42% of the population. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z2IxwaXh0Ww/Um6IAd5AXAI/AAAAAAAAHis/eLUj4yJxmTs/s1600/Conclus%C3%A3o+Cabelo+Escuro.png

Medium Hair (Brown and Light Brown) accounts for 34-37% http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OWfFKzVx6EE/Um6JDmss9eI/AAAAAAAAHi4/toF-6cr8XdM/s1600/Conclus%C3%A3o+Cabelo+M%C3%A9dio.png

Blonde hair accounts for 17-23%. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5Xdf39yFAbk/Um6KB-JxtZI/AAAAAAAAHjA/oyrN-paNFVg/s1600/Conclus%C3%A3o+Cabelo+Claro+(Louro).png

(The sources are all in Portuguese. So, I suggest you use Google translator.)

I have no idea what does Religion have to do with anything. Mediterranean is not a race. It's a piece of geography that encapsulates a group of countries that boarder the Mediterranean ocean. Portugal is Atlantic.

Yes, the Portuguese have a lot more in common with Central-Europeans, than they do with other 'Mediterraneans'. The Portuguese themselves share the same genetic make up as the rest of Western Europe under the haplogroup R1b.

See Map below: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png

You may also want to take a look at the following map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualtyper (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are aware that the bulk of the stuff you're quoting is outdated physical anthropology that was linked to scientific racism, right? I mean, sure, we can keep the page saying that some unbelievably high percent of Portuguese are blondies, completely not mention the fact that some of them have black hair, and paint this picture portraying them as looking just like, say, Germans or Czechs, but I think you know just as well as I that this isn't really the case. Sure there are some light-haired Portuguese (just like there are light Italians, Spaniards, and yes "Moors", like the red-headed current Queen of Morocco), but these percents are just unbelievable, and the whole thing looks pretty fishy >.>.


 * And yes, as for R1b, that's the Y-haplogroup. It's just the line of all your male ancestors, and it doesn't account for all the females (and fathers of females) you're descended from. Y-DNA haplogroups often don't really correlate with appearance either: R1b is dominant in Western Europe, but it's also a pretty frequent haplogroup in Armenians, Bashkirs and even the Hausa in Nigeria. A lot of times with the male haplogroup there's a bottleneck effect because of men wiping each other out and taking each others' women (and there've been studies that have speculated that this is the reason for the overwhelming dominance of R1b in Western Europe in particular). --Yalens (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As for maps, I would note this widely-used one (1-19% is believable):

.
 * Well that's my two cents, at least. I"m not gonna change anything myself (no real policy reason to), just pointing it out...--Yalens (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Eusébio
Is there any objection to listing Eusébio as being Portuguese--Eusébio's father was a white Angolan of Portuguese ancestry, Eusébio played for the Portuguese team, and he is a citizen of Portugal. How is he NOT Portuguese?Goodsdrew (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how no objections have been expressed, I'm reverting back to include Eusebio.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of discussion is this? You open a tab, you wait, and then your reply to your own subject minutes after your initial post???

- Yes. I object.

Eusébio is not Ethnically Portuguese. Nor was born in Portugal. He was born in Mozambique. The son of a Mozambican mother and and Angolan father. In other words. He is not Portuguese, nor was born in Portugal.

Eusébio has been mentioned in the Afro-Portuguese page, if that is of any relevance to you. Virtualtyper (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I waited over a week, with no response; the time stamps clearly show that. You deleted my follow up comment that included the timestamp showing that I waited a over week. Very dishonest. DO NOT do that again, or I will report you.


 * And on the substance, you are just wrong. His father was of Portuguese ancestry. He was a Portuguese citizen (and ONLY a Portuguese citizen) from birth. He lives in Portugal. He played for the Portuguese national team. How much Portuguese does someone have to be to qualify for you? Eusebio is widely considered in Portugal and by the Portuguese to be one of their own. People can have multiple ethnicities. His mother is African. So what? It doesn't mean that Eusabio isn't also Portuguese. To claim otherwise would be racist.Goodsdrew (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If I had known you opened a tab questioning Eusébio. I would have objected, instantly. Instead, you discreetly opened it and waited in hopes for no replies.

You should have alerted me for this. But you did not, just to lay low and now find yourself in the position you are.

Eusébio is ethnically African. If he is a naturalize Portuguese citizen, he is therefore an Afro-Portuguese.

You are the one who is being racist, and neglecting one's racial identity. You need to start recognizing that exist ethnic minorities in Portugal, of non-Portuguese ancestry, instead of trying to lump everyone in the same sackcloth. Virtualtyper (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You say he's a naturalized citizen. Do you have a citation for that? He was born in Portuguese territory to a Portugese-citizen father, and he moved to Portugal as a Portuguese citizen before any of the colonies became independent. Tell me, if he is a naturalized citizen, then what was his citizenship at birth (keep in mind that Angola and Mozambique weren't even countries when he was born). 207.114.221.225 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

His parents were not Portuguese, they were Angolan and Mozambican. Nor is he a Portuguese by ethnicity. Being a citizen to a country does not make a person to be native to that country.

This page regards the ethnicity of the Portuguese. Virtualtyper (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is about the ethnic Portuguese people, but it seems that the user goodsdrew has no idea of what is a ethnic Portuguese, or for that matter anything about Portuguese people and culture to make such a claim. Eusébio speaks Ronga as his mother tongue and his native ethnicity is Ronga. He has the same ethnicity of his family who lives in Mafalala where he was raised. I am not even commenting the fact that there are people who say he has double nationality . Nationality is not the same as ethnicity or race. Making such claims reveals an appalling lack of knowledge of Portuguese culture and identity. When Eusébio came from Mozambique to Portugal he was 18 and already had an ethnicity, a family, a culture and friends. Things he did not forget..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.23.0 (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as ethnically African (you can be a member of some African ethnic group, but that doesn't hinder you from belonging to non-African ones at the same time) and ethnicity is not about your race or the place you've been born, but rather by how you see yourself. That is why Brazilian is an ethnic group with plenty of members of about every human race (well, I never met someone who is Aboriginal, but even so) and their respective admixtures.

Of course I believe that the guy identifies as Mozambican, but this sort of style in such a contentious matter, being categorical about how un-Portuguese someone is (as has been a pattern for some people editing Portugal-themed articles), makes people lose their credibility because they look like angry white nationalists. Hell, it's not like if I move to Uruguay tomorrow, get citizenship, acquire the culture, marry and raise my kids in their group and live there by more time than most of its population I wouldn't be just as much Uruguayan as anyone. (Well, after all there are plenty of ethnic Uruguayans who speak Portuguese natively, or who practice Afro-Brazilian religions, or who vote for charismatic left-leaning leaders, or who want to legalize marriage equality and weed and will succeed at it... it's easy to blur... But I digress.)

Of course if I manage to prove this point, people will still argue that blood and stuff is important out of the New World (even though he's of mixed Portuguese descent and speaks Portuguese natively...), but quite fairly, Wikipedia is one of the places where European exceptionalism is most likely to fall if it doesn't survive to the light of modern anthropology. And given how there's nothing particularly stronger or special about your [supposedly one-drop-ruled] blood identity instead of your civil-social identity, it is one of such cases. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Non European Influence is strong and this article shamefully tries to deny it
You do not need to live for long in our country until you meet people who clearly have a non european skin color and do not know from where it comes from. I am an example of that, and several other portugueses fit this case. Trying to deny it leaves these people with no ethnicity. This article should be removed. It is a racist article.

I think you are confused. This article refers to INDIGENOUS Portuguese, not Portuguese CITIZENS of mixed heritage. Mixed race people in Portugal are NOT INDIGENOUS Portuguese and have nothing to do with what signifies Portuguese ethnicity. There is little extra-European admixture in NATIVE Portuguese and recent studies show INDIGENOUS Portuguese to be majority Atlantic, North Sea and Western Mediterranean in origin (see Eurogenes, Dienekes and McDonald, for example). Gallaecian (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC) You read like you have recent admixture, therefore, you're a non-indigenous / non-native Portuguese citizen, even if born in Portugal. There are fair numbers of non-Euro and mixed peoples in Portugal (Ronaldo is one of those - 1/16% Cape Verdean) and perhaps some of your heritage lies there.

Of course there was a strong influence by the moorish, the africans (both south and north) and the indians, both asiatic and Brazilian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.232.115 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2015‎

The "Moorish" influence was quite minor and mainly came from ancient (Mesolithic, Neolithic) Berber migrations. INDIGENOUS Portuguese have few genetic markers of this type. The people you refer to (e.g., Indians and Africans) are NOT INDIGENOUS Portuguese. Are blacks or Pakistanis born in England, INDIGENOUS English? Is a mulatto French citizen ethnically French? Obviously not. Seriously, please educate yourself. Gallaecian (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You could maybe suggest some improvements? Calling it racist and asking for it to be deleted probably isn't going to be a successful strategy. Being constructive is more likely to. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to improve. The people making noise here are likely mixed race Portuguese CITIZENS trying to distort an article concerning INDIGENOUS Portuguese people. It's insulting to all native Portuguese. Gallaecian (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I beg to strongly disagree, Gallaecian, and for some very good reasons, none of them concerning with political correctness. When you talk about "indigenous Portuguese people", to whom are you referring?

To Neanderthals, who settled in the territory now known as Portugal before the Cro-Magnons? I doubt you would go so far as to consider indigenous Portuguese people a species of human different from that of the modern humans.

Maybe to the first children born of the interbreeding of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons? In that case, the first Portuguese would not be a mixed race, but a mixed species people.

Or to the pre-Celts, as some researchers consider Lusitanians to be? But I doubt that someone whose nickname is Gallaecian would exclude the Gallaeci from the definition of indigenous Portuguese people.

Then, to the result of the mixture between pre-Celtic, as Lusitanians are considered by some scholars, and Celtic peoples, as Gallaecians? I bet, however, you wouldn't let your Roman ancestors out of the definition, would you?

So, would Portuguese people be the result of the fusion of pre-Celtic, Celtic and Roman peoples? Well, that would leave out the germanic tribes who migrated to the now called Portugal before and after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Well, as you may notice, in any case, there would be a lot of ethnic groups in the melting pot from which came the Portuguese people. Therefore, it is not false to state that Portuguese people are, by definition, a multi-ethnic people since its origin, which is, of course, different from saying it is a mixed race people from the very beggining, considering that all those ethnic groups, although different from each other, were all white race ethnic groups.

Oh, now I see! Indigenous Portuguese people are not a pure ethnic group, one that would have only 100% Lusitanians or 100% Gallaecians or 100% Roman (a people who was also multiethnic), but a multiethnic people that is purely white?

So, when you say "indigenous Portuguese people", you don't refer to a people descended from a single ethnic group (as the Lusitanians) that wouldn't ever have interbred with any other ethnic group (as the Gallaecians, the Romans, the Germanic tribes), but to a mixture of different ethnic groups who were, nevertheless, all white. In that sense, "indigenous Portuguese people" wouldn't be different from any other European "indigenous people", as, for example, the "indigenous Germans", the "indigenous Italians", the "indigenous French people" and so on. The only difference between all the aforementioned peoples would be the different percentages each ancestral ethnic group would have in their formation, but all of them would be the sum of white ethnic groups, and that is what matters to call them "indigenous people" to (put here any modern European state name).

If that is so, then, in your reasoning, it is RACE, not ETHNICITY, that really matters to define a particular group of CITIZENS as being not only citizens of a modern day European STATE, but also as indigenous PEOPLE to its TERRITORY. As long as someone born in Portugal is white, he will be an indigenous Portuguese, regardless of having a parent, or maternal or paternal grandparent, or great grandparent, or great great grandparent who were of Spanish (well, maybe not Spanish! Jesus!), or French, or Italian or German PURE WHITE ancestry.

Or would you go as far as to say that, in order to be considered part of the indigenous people of Portugal, one would have to have less than (choose a randmom number to put here)% of white non-Portuguese European ancestry? Well, you would have to rule out of the definition lots of white Portuguese citizens, who have at least one grandparent or great grandparent from other European countries.

Maybe you would go as far as to almost extinguish the indigenous Portuguese people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.186.82 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese in Brazil
Some IP numbers are trying to dissiminate the figure of 100 million people of Portuguese descent in Brazil, when this figure is unsourced. I removed it from the article. Xuxo (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC
For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Azoreans and Madeirans
Two islands in the North Atlantic belonging to Portugal has sent a large proportion of immigrants in ratio of the island population to other continents. Azoreans and Madeirans went to the US (esp New England, Florida, California, Hawaii and territory since 1899-Puerto Rico) in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Nowadays, Portugal has immigration from Eastern and Southeast Europe like Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Albania. But in the 16th and 17th centuries, Flemish and Dutch settlers from the Netherlands and Belgium arrived to help settle the Azores and Madeira. And least not forget former Portuguese colony (until 1975) Cape Verde sent a large global diaspora all over the world, mainly places where European Portuguese also settled. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Portuguese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190314/http://www.observatorioemigracao.secomunidades.pt/np4/2454.html to http://www.observatorioemigracao.secomunidades.pt/np4/2454.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190314/http://www.observatorioemigracao.secomunidades.pt/np4/2454.html to http://www.observatorioemigracao.secomunidades.pt/np4/2454.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.memorialdoimigrante.sp.gov.br/historico/e4.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/judeus/cristaos_novos.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nalis.gov.tt/Communities/communities_Portuguese.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050511105416/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224012534/http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/portugueses.html to http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/portugueses.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/tabelas/populacao_cor.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/portugueses.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Portuguese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802014647/http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/22/publ.Document.114724.pdf to http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/22/publ.Document.114724.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140926180317/http://imigrantes.no.sapo.pt/page6.australia.html to http://imigrantes.no.sapo.pt/page6.australia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Genetics (again)
I've just reverted a good faith addition to the "Demographics" section here. Firstly, it makes no sense in the context it was added. Secondly, while some other ethnic group articles have genetics sections, they are set out with care in their own section, and clearly define the relevance of the DNA studies. As has been noted multiple times on ethnic group articles, DNA studies are in their infancy and it is preferred that a dedicated article be created lest ethnic cultural groups and DNA be conflated as being one and the same. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, a genetics section can be added to this article, which seems the proper location of that info. The Basque article does have a genetics section. It can be as informative or more than some historical findings, and that study was properly researched, and its conclusions does not defy historical knowledge. --Pedro (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed that it is a relevant method of introducing genetics. If/once it becomes more comprehensive, it could be moved to its own article space and a summary left on this article (with a hatnote to the main article). As with other ethnic group articles, we need to keep an eye on the calibre of the sources (i.e., as with the ones you've introduced, they should be reliable studies in the same way that other scientific content conforms with WP:PMID). There are a lot of blogs and other self published sources around, therefore scrutiny of such content is of utmost importance. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * this study is well known in Portugal, that's why I added, but it is in its early stages. Just like history books we must read it with a grain of salt. Some magazine articles use it: such as this one --Pedro (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Portuguese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028023159/http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1192698 to http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1192698
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028023159/http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1192698 to http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1192698
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230163157/http://www.abep.nepo.unicamp.br/docs/rev_inf/vol6_n2_1989/vol6_n2_1989_2artigo_17_37.pdf to http://www.abep.nepo.unicamp.br/docs/rev_inf/vol6_n2_1989/vol6_n2_1989_2artigo_17_37.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ich.unito.com.br/materia/resource/download/41917
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326213734/https://www9.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html to https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

estudo ridiculo por que não pegaram deep rj pra representar o se não faz sentido escolher condado comum pras 2 outras amostras dos deep estados e só pro ne pegar a metropole menos europeia do br

é como procurar gens nativos e africanos em pomerode como se fosse a media do sangue velho na zona menos antiga